BTW, don't get me wrong, i'm all for increasing the armor limits on lighter chassis. At least for Mediums. Lights only if thex fix hit det. I wouldn't give them "ghost armor", but why not let them add a few more tons to the sections they want to protect? I'd like that a lot.
However, the OP's reasoning is just... baffling. I don't get it. At all.
6
Why Double Armor Is Unbalanced
Started by Saint Rigid, Aug 13 2013 03:38 PM
172 replies to this topic
#82
-
-
- 250 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:09 AM
At the current damage aspects of weapons, there is no doubt doubling the armor (or even increasing the armor by X%) would increase the longevity of the game and the mechs. Increasing the IS would probably be a bit better in that it increases the longevity of mechs while making the able to survive and get the feel of "I can't believe I'm alive" having limbs tore off and IS exposed with nothing but a ML left to shoot things.
It's not the Increased armor itself that's unbalanced it's the result of other mechanics that it affects that make it unbalancing. You double the armor (or increase the armor some amount), the biggest affect is ammo. What has been mentioned that instead of X shots to remove a limb, it's now X+Y. With the increase in ammo use, there would have to be an increase in ammo/ton or it would exacerbate the use of energy weapons as the go to choice. The increase in ammo would have to be adjusted correctly to include ammo explosion results (so it's not to big or too small of damage).
Also, how would this extra armor come about? If they open up the max armor limits of mechs so that you could add more armor (or altering FF so that it allows a higher cap) would not be a bad idea. At that point there wouldn't need to be much of an ammo change as it's a choice available instead of a fixed given.
At what point would an armor increase be too much? If you take the simple approach that increasing the armor increases the time to kill by the same % amount would it be enjoyable or frustrating? Take a look at all those mechs you were firing at and would not die for a long time, now increase that time by the extra armor, would it still be enjoyable? Those are uncommon cases, but increasing the armor by any large amount would undoubtedly result in opposite threads of "mechs take too long to kill."
It's not the Increased armor itself that's unbalanced it's the result of other mechanics that it affects that make it unbalancing. You double the armor (or increase the armor some amount), the biggest affect is ammo. What has been mentioned that instead of X shots to remove a limb, it's now X+Y. With the increase in ammo use, there would have to be an increase in ammo/ton or it would exacerbate the use of energy weapons as the go to choice. The increase in ammo would have to be adjusted correctly to include ammo explosion results (so it's not to big or too small of damage).
Also, how would this extra armor come about? If they open up the max armor limits of mechs so that you could add more armor (or altering FF so that it allows a higher cap) would not be a bad idea. At that point there wouldn't need to be much of an ammo change as it's a choice available instead of a fixed given.
At what point would an armor increase be too much? If you take the simple approach that increasing the armor increases the time to kill by the same % amount would it be enjoyable or frustrating? Take a look at all those mechs you were firing at and would not die for a long time, now increase that time by the extra armor, would it still be enjoyable? Those are uncommon cases, but increasing the armor by any large amount would undoubtedly result in opposite threads of "mechs take too long to kill."
#83
-
-
- 3,815 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:18 AM
Armor values used in MWO are derived directly from table top values.In initial play testing these were the values we used and it was determined that 1x armor was tissue paper and mechs dropped way to quickly.
So the developers doubled armor values and this was way back in April 2012 (if I recall) and there it has stayed unaltered since.
Now the wrench in the works is those armor values derived from table top were intended to function in a framework of a ten second turn where each weapon would be discharged once in that ten seconds.
However MWo has increased the refire rates of most weapons by 2.5x while retaining the 1x damage values of most weapons.
So 2x armor (defence value) vs 2.5x refire rate increase is still a net loss in overall defence over time.
Essentially doubled armor values dirived from table top used in MWo is actually lower defences than table top values.
Table top hunchback fires it's AC20 once in each of two turns inflicting 40 damage in 20 seconds
MWO Hunchback fires it's AC20 5 times in 20 seconds inflicting 100 damage in the same 20 second period.
Accounting for doubled armor of MWo values this 100 damage is as effective as 50 damage in table top values and as is clear to see even with doubled armor MWO expresses a 25% higher rate of damage application potential.
Doubled armor is actually 25% less defence in MWo.
So the developers doubled armor values and this was way back in April 2012 (if I recall) and there it has stayed unaltered since.
Now the wrench in the works is those armor values derived from table top were intended to function in a framework of a ten second turn where each weapon would be discharged once in that ten seconds.
However MWo has increased the refire rates of most weapons by 2.5x while retaining the 1x damage values of most weapons.
So 2x armor (defence value) vs 2.5x refire rate increase is still a net loss in overall defence over time.
Essentially doubled armor values dirived from table top used in MWo is actually lower defences than table top values.
Table top hunchback fires it's AC20 once in each of two turns inflicting 40 damage in 20 seconds
MWO Hunchback fires it's AC20 5 times in 20 seconds inflicting 100 damage in the same 20 second period.
Accounting for doubled armor of MWo values this 100 damage is as effective as 50 damage in table top values and as is clear to see even with doubled armor MWO expresses a 25% higher rate of damage application potential.
Doubled armor is actually 25% less defence in MWo.
#84
-
-
- The Merciless
- 1,035 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:24 AM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:
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.
I'm still waiting for it, where's the ******* fomula to back up your math fail?
Quote
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.
Where's the ******* formula?
Quote
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.
Where's the ******* formula?
Quote
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.
NOW WHERE'S THE ******* FORMULA TO BACK UP THIS HORRIFIC PILE OF MATH-CRIMES AGAINST SCIENCE?
Aaaaaargh, i'm getting angry when discussing things that have simple, deterministic rules as a base and somehow ppl like to keep the arguments on a base of feelings, emotions, opinions, false assumptions and plain nonsense. Are we discussing homeopathy here?
Just provide the ******* formula your theories stand on, so i can see why you're wrong in your conclusions. As long as you can't, won't, or don't want to do this, there's nothing to discuss here as you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Edited by ollo, 15 August 2013 - 09:25 AM.
#85
-
-
- 638 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:09 AM
There is no formula because the armor values were never based on a formula that was based on a real time fps pinpoint accuracy game. Also. The formula is simple. Flat increase instead of %. How hard to formula is that. With a flat increase, everyone gets the same, and % favors whoever has more of whatever is being increased at the time.
The values were taken from a table top game which had a formula based on BV for determining the value of a mech.
This is a real time game, that took table top values and for the most part has not attempted to adjust them to fit better with what a real time game with pinpoint accuracy vs a table top game which is turn based, and randomly rolled dice.
If you notice leg armor. The amount of leg armor on a mech is huge, which is because leg armor was increased, then further increased on top of that.
The fact is anytime you get into a % based increase on anything. The weapons/skills/etc/etc/etc that are increased by a percent get greater gains than those without. This is further exasperates the problem when you have mechs that has such a huge variety, that a simple % increase can result in 1 mech getting 5-6 times as much benefit from an increase.
You will all see the problem and how bad it is as soon as hit detection is up to snuff, the idea lights are fine is based on most shots not counting. When hit detection finally does work. The fact that a light mech can still get 1 or 2 shot when it has to hit 10-12 times in that same time frame to win will truly show how much double armor hurt this game. And it is not about doubled armor in a single location, it is about doubled armor everywhere, and because damage is spread on a mech. Mechs that got jack from doubled armor are still in more trouble than those that got massive boosts.
We had for a short time a period where hit detection was great, and during that month, it basically took every single light from the field, because they were getting 2 shot all the time.
Like most people think that the PPC got a 1 second increase in rate of fire. when it was actually less when you factor in fast fire because you fire 5% faster. SO its 3.8 recharge instead of a 2.85. Sure its subtle in that instance, but how about when you take a catapult and get it 20% torso twist.
Lets look at a mech having 20 double heatsinks. It has 3.54 heat dissapation, and 65.4 capacity. coolrun turns it to 3.81 dissapation and containment turns it to 71.94 capacity. Then lets elite those 4.07 dissapation and 78.48 caps. Now lets look at a light mech with 14 dbls has a 2.5 dissapation, and 55 cap, and coolrun and cap increase it to 2.7 and 60.5 and elite it 2.88 & 66. an elited assault mech with 6 more heatsinks has 22 more heat cap, and 1.25 better heat dissapation. All because of 10% increases. Why does the stalker deserve that, it is already backing 4 times the firepower of the raven. Why does it also get to fire far more often, and get more alphas before overheat.
The values were taken from a table top game which had a formula based on BV for determining the value of a mech.
This is a real time game, that took table top values and for the most part has not attempted to adjust them to fit better with what a real time game with pinpoint accuracy vs a table top game which is turn based, and randomly rolled dice.
If you notice leg armor. The amount of leg armor on a mech is huge, which is because leg armor was increased, then further increased on top of that.
The fact is anytime you get into a % based increase on anything. The weapons/skills/etc/etc/etc that are increased by a percent get greater gains than those without. This is further exasperates the problem when you have mechs that has such a huge variety, that a simple % increase can result in 1 mech getting 5-6 times as much benefit from an increase.
You will all see the problem and how bad it is as soon as hit detection is up to snuff, the idea lights are fine is based on most shots not counting. When hit detection finally does work. The fact that a light mech can still get 1 or 2 shot when it has to hit 10-12 times in that same time frame to win will truly show how much double armor hurt this game. And it is not about doubled armor in a single location, it is about doubled armor everywhere, and because damage is spread on a mech. Mechs that got jack from doubled armor are still in more trouble than those that got massive boosts.
We had for a short time a period where hit detection was great, and during that month, it basically took every single light from the field, because they were getting 2 shot all the time.
Like most people think that the PPC got a 1 second increase in rate of fire. when it was actually less when you factor in fast fire because you fire 5% faster. SO its 3.8 recharge instead of a 2.85. Sure its subtle in that instance, but how about when you take a catapult and get it 20% torso twist.
Lets look at a mech having 20 double heatsinks. It has 3.54 heat dissapation, and 65.4 capacity. coolrun turns it to 3.81 dissapation and containment turns it to 71.94 capacity. Then lets elite those 4.07 dissapation and 78.48 caps. Now lets look at a light mech with 14 dbls has a 2.5 dissapation, and 55 cap, and coolrun and cap increase it to 2.7 and 60.5 and elite it 2.88 & 66. an elited assault mech with 6 more heatsinks has 22 more heat cap, and 1.25 better heat dissapation. All because of 10% increases. Why does the stalker deserve that, it is already backing 4 times the firepower of the raven. Why does it also get to fire far more often, and get more alphas before overheat.
#86
-
-
- 97 posts
Member
- LocationRostock, Germany
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:29 AM
Look, if you add or subtract, then only the absolute difference is relevant. In that case, you would be right.
But the outcome of a battle (at least if you reduce it to dmg, time and armor), as I've demonstrated above, follows a formula that uses multiplication and division. Thus, you look at the relative difference. That's really just basic math.
Why does an Assault get so much more extra armor? Because it needs exactly that amount to do exactly as well as before. Because the % bonus one 'Mech gets is exactly the factor (because it's multiplication) the other 'Mech needs to get if you don't want to affect balance.
The reason Lights are so easy to kill (with good hit detection) is because they always were. Especially in TT, where their stats stem from. Double armor did not hurt them.
But the outcome of a battle (at least if you reduce it to dmg, time and armor), as I've demonstrated above, follows a formula that uses multiplication and division. Thus, you look at the relative difference. That's really just basic math.
Why does an Assault get so much more extra armor? Because it needs exactly that amount to do exactly as well as before. Because the % bonus one 'Mech gets is exactly the factor (because it's multiplication) the other 'Mech needs to get if you don't want to affect balance.
The reason Lights are so easy to kill (with good hit detection) is because they always were. Especially in TT, where their stats stem from. Double armor did not hurt them.
Edited by LeShadow, 15 August 2013 - 10:30 AM.
#87
-
-
- 638 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:35 AM
LeShadow, on 15 August 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:
Look, if you add or subtract, then only the absolute difference is relevant. In that case, you would be right.
But the outcome of a battle (at least if you reduce it to dmg, time and armor), as I've demonstrated above, follows a formula that uses multiplication and division. Thus, you look at the relative difference. That's really just basic math.
Why does an Assault get so much more extra armor? Because it needs exactly that amount to do exactly as well as before. Because the % bonus one 'Mech gets is exactly the factor (because it's multiplication) the other 'Mech needs to get if you don't want to affect balance.
The reason Lights are so easy to kill (with good hit detection) is because they always were. Especially in TT, where their stats stem from. Double armor did not hurt them.
But the outcome of a battle (at least if you reduce it to dmg, time and armor), as I've demonstrated above, follows a formula that uses multiplication and division. Thus, you look at the relative difference. That's really just basic math.
Why does an Assault get so much more extra armor? Because it needs exactly that amount to do exactly as well as before. Because the % bonus one 'Mech gets is exactly the factor (because it's multiplication) the other 'Mech needs to get if you don't want to affect balance.
The reason Lights are so easy to kill (with good hit detection) is because they always were. Especially in TT, where their stats stem from. Double armor did not hurt them.
incorrect.
For an assault to do the same as before, A flat increase would have been required. The assault in fact does better as it has more armor left than previous. All things equal. If you gave all mechs a 25 point increase in armor, after said fight is done. That mech is going to be in a similar condition as before. By doubling the armor, the Mech is going to have much more armor left before, leaving it in a superior state.
Also, lights were hurt by the fact that assaults carry far more armor than before. Which does leave them worse off than before. Barring hit detection issues.
Edited by Braggart, 15 August 2013 - 10:36 AM.
#88
-
-
- 624 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:49 AM
Medium mechs kill other medium mechs about as fast as assault mechs kill other assault mechs. Hell, probably slower.
The problem isn't that medium mechs are too weak, it's that at present a medium mech at 50 tons should be worth ~1/2 as much as an Atlas at 100 tons, yet the matchmaking clearly doesn't agree.
Mediums and heavies and lights have a good balance, but assaults packing 3+ large lasers + ballistics or 3 PPCs completely skew the balance because the matchmaking right now has no idea how to compensate properly for that.
Wait until weight matching is in and medium mechs are saving your team tonnage while assaults are devouring all your team's tonnage. Then we'll see people piloting mediums simply because they are good at them and they power up the rest of their team with the saved tonnage.
Also everyone going "we fire faster double armor isn't enough!" we also have craptastic heat sinks and heavy damage mechs overheat in like 10-15 seconds. The only mechs shredding other mechs before overheating are assaults to the mediums, which as I've said above, is just an issue with the match maker not properly addressing the issue that assaults should be weighted as WAYYYY more valuable than mediums.,
The problem isn't that medium mechs are too weak, it's that at present a medium mech at 50 tons should be worth ~1/2 as much as an Atlas at 100 tons, yet the matchmaking clearly doesn't agree.
Mediums and heavies and lights have a good balance, but assaults packing 3+ large lasers + ballistics or 3 PPCs completely skew the balance because the matchmaking right now has no idea how to compensate properly for that.
Wait until weight matching is in and medium mechs are saving your team tonnage while assaults are devouring all your team's tonnage. Then we'll see people piloting mediums simply because they are good at them and they power up the rest of their team with the saved tonnage.
Also everyone going "we fire faster double armor isn't enough!" we also have craptastic heat sinks and heavy damage mechs overheat in like 10-15 seconds. The only mechs shredding other mechs before overheating are assaults to the mediums, which as I've said above, is just an issue with the match maker not properly addressing the issue that assaults should be weighted as WAYYYY more valuable than mediums.,
#89
-
-
- 638 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:49 AM
hashinshin, on 15 August 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:
Medium mechs kill other medium mechs about as fast as assault mechs kill other assault mechs. Hell, probably slower.
The problem isn't that medium mechs are too weak, it's that at present a medium mech at 50 tons should be worth ~1/2 as much as an Atlas at 100 tons, yet the matchmaking clearly doesn't agree.
Mediums and heavies and lights have a good balance, but assaults packing 3+ large lasers + ballistics or 3 PPCs completely skew the balance because the matchmaking right now has no idea how to compensate properly for that.
Wait until weight matching is in and medium mechs are saving your team tonnage while assaults are devouring all your team's tonnage. Then we'll see people piloting mediums simply because they are good at them and they power up the rest of their team with the saved tonnage.
The problem isn't that medium mechs are too weak, it's that at present a medium mech at 50 tons should be worth ~1/2 as much as an Atlas at 100 tons, yet the matchmaking clearly doesn't agree.
Mediums and heavies and lights have a good balance, but assaults packing 3+ large lasers + ballistics or 3 PPCs completely skew the balance because the matchmaking right now has no idea how to compensate properly for that.
Wait until weight matching is in and medium mechs are saving your team tonnage while assaults are devouring all your team's tonnage. Then we'll see people piloting mediums simply because they are good at them and they power up the rest of their team with the saved tonnage.
True, but if they would have done an even flat increase of armor for all mechs. An atlas would have the CT armor of a cataphract right now. Giving a medium a very good chance of hurting an assault severely, and possibly winning against a wounded one. Currently, even a greatly hurt assault is more than capable of handling a fresh medium.
#90
-
-
- 250 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:51 AM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:
Why does it also get to fire far more often, and get more alphas before overheat.
My guess would be because it has more heatsinks.
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
incorrect.
For an assault to do the same as before, A flat increase would have been required.
Except no, it wouldn't. A flat rate across the board is or would be a diminishing return as you went up the chassis weight. Lights would benefit the most, while heavier mechs would get a lesser benefit from it. If you did a flat 100 armor bonus to all, it would be about 66-90% increase, on a medium it would increase it by about 25-60%, on a heavy 20-40% and on an assault 16-20%. (rough guess from looking at armor of raven, hunchback, cataphract, atlas armor values). Using a flat rate would close the gap of armor difference between the different classes and then nobody would pilot heavier mechs, when why bother using a large slower mech when slightly less armor and slightly less firepower I go double the speed.
#91
-
-
- 624 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 11:36 AM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:
True, but if they would have done an even flat increase of armor for all mechs. An atlas would have the CT armor of a cataphract right now. Giving a medium a very good chance of hurting an assault severely, and possibly winning against a wounded one. Currently, even a greatly hurt assault is more than capable of handling a fresh medium.
not true relaly. Most mediums pack a good set of med-las or machine guns or LRMs or SRMs. Basically weapons with not amazing DPS but enough power behind them to jack up assaults.
While they'd get shred to pieces long before they could o it in a fair fight, in an unfair fight they get all the advantage. My 3x machine gun hunchback has a habit of tearing apart LRM heavy stalkers in an ambush
#92
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 47 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 11:52 AM
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)
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)
I understand your concern. Doubling or increasing armor for all mechs by a static X% does not achieve equilibrium in terms of balance across the entire board of mechs. There is an inherent bias or favor towards mechs of different armor values.
I feel as though your arguement is correct in that you cannot increase armor values of all mechs by the same percentage value because it creates an unintended bias for a specific class. I disagree that doubling armor is in favor of the assault class.
I feel that doubling armor is an advantage for lights more than assaults because light and fast mechs are
arguably the hardest mechs to kill. Based on my experience, I always target the heaviest mechs first because they are the easiest to hit, and can kill me more easily. Doubling a light's armor would make a shooter have to hit the light, theoretically, twice as much. It's much easier to hit an atlas twice than it is to hit a spider twice. Do you see what I mean?
Doubling armor is a buff for lights. Nerfing convergence would also be a buff to lights. As it is right now, a light has more survivability than an assault. Of course, my feedback is based on logic derived from experience so your experience may differ.
Edited by Entail, 15 August 2013 - 11:57 AM.
#93
-
-
- The Merciless
- 1,035 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:58 PM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:
There is no formula because the armor values were never based on a formula that was based on a real time fps pinpoint accuracy game. Also. The formula is simple. Flat increase instead of %. How hard to formula is that. With a flat increase, everyone gets the same, and % favors whoever has more of whatever is being increased at the time.
No, there is no formula because in your magical universe of wonders and unicorns there only exists your own faulty biased opinion. In our world, where we run the game on machines called 'computers', there is a formula, because in the end all that computers can do is add/substract/multiply/etc... and the fact that you can't even explain what you mean based on my simple example shows me that your obviously mathless universe is no place that i, or anyone who is capable of logic thinking can fathom... </sheldon>
#94
-
-
- 638 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 01:54 PM
Entail, on 15 August 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:
I understand your concern. Doubling or increasing armor for all mechs by a static X% does not achieve equilibrium in terms of balance across the entire board of mechs. There is an inherent bias or favor towards mechs of different armor values.
I feel as though your arguement is correct in that you cannot increase armor values of all mechs by the same percentage value because it creates an unintended bias for a specific class. I disagree that doubling armor is in favor of the assault class.
I feel that doubling armor is an advantage for lights more than assaults because light and fast mechs are
arguably the hardest mechs to kill. Based on my experience, I always target the heaviest mechs first because they are the easiest to hit, and can kill me more easily. Doubling a light's armor would make a shooter have to hit the light, theoretically, twice as much. It's much easier to hit an atlas twice than it is to hit a spider twice. Do you see what I mean?
Doubling armor is a buff for lights. Nerfing convergence would also be a buff to lights. As it is right now, a light has more survivability than an assault. Of course, my feedback is based on logic derived from experience so your experience may differ.
I feel as though your arguement is correct in that you cannot increase armor values of all mechs by the same percentage value because it creates an unintended bias for a specific class. I disagree that doubling armor is in favor of the assault class.
I feel that doubling armor is an advantage for lights more than assaults because light and fast mechs are
arguably the hardest mechs to kill. Based on my experience, I always target the heaviest mechs first because they are the easiest to hit, and can kill me more easily. Doubling a light's armor would make a shooter have to hit the light, theoretically, twice as much. It's much easier to hit an atlas twice than it is to hit a spider twice. Do you see what I mean?
Doubling armor is a buff for lights. Nerfing convergence would also be a buff to lights. As it is right now, a light has more survivability than an assault. Of course, my feedback is based on logic derived from experience so your experience may differ.
as i have said before. Lights are only hard to kill right now because of hit detection issues. Several months ago, we had pretty damn perfect hit detection, and lights were getting dropped in 2 shots by people who could aim. the forums were aflame of people just getting cut down. Now PGI screwed something up bad and hit detection has now gotten so bad that shots dont even register on a non-moving atlas alot of the time.
As soon as hit detection gets fixed, you will see exactly what we saw before. Lights getting cut down in a matter of seconds.
#95
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 1,452 posts
Member
Posted 15 August 2013 - 03:52 PM
"single" armor wouldn't bother anyone if players entered matches faster.
It's all about ingame time vs main menu time and while main menu time is what it is, double armor has to stay, unfortunately.
It's all about ingame time vs main menu time and while main menu time is what it is, double armor has to stay, unfortunately.
#96
Posted 15 August 2013 - 03:59 PM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:
as i have said before. Lights are only hard to kill right now because of hit detection issues. Several months ago, we had pretty damn perfect hit detection, and lights were getting dropped in 2 shots by people who could aim. the forums were aflame of people just getting cut down. Now PGI screwed something up bad and hit detection has now gotten so bad that shots dont even register on a non-moving atlas alot of the time.
As soon as hit detection gets fixed, you will see exactly what we saw before. Lights getting cut down in a matter of seconds.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 15 August 2013 - 03:59 PM.
#97
-
-
- 164 posts
Member
- LocationMyrtle Beach SC
Posted 15 August 2013 - 07:05 PM
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:
as i have said before. Lights are only hard to kill right now because of hit detection issues. Several months ago, we had pretty damn perfect hit detection, and lights were getting dropped in 2 shots by people who could aim. the forums were aflame of people just getting cut down. Now PGI screwed something up bad and hit detection has now gotten so bad that shots dont even register on a non-moving atlas alot of the time.
As soon as hit detection gets fixed, you will see exactly what we saw before. Lights getting cut down in a matter of seconds.
Can argue back and forth about light survivability and how much fixes to hit detection will change it. Whether or not they will need more, or they have too much now, etc. It's an offered opinion for people to agree or disagree with.
But the premise that doubling armor was unbalanced and favors the heavier mechs is just plain wrong. Adding a flat armor amount changes balance and benefits lighter mechs. Because it changes the ratios between the mechs.
Relative armor ratios are what determine changes in armor balance. So long as the ratios remain the same, the balance (or lack of balance) remains the same.
#98
-
-
- The Seeker
- 8,586 posts
Member
- LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion
Posted 15 August 2013 - 08:07 PM
To start off with this comment, I'll mentioned what I think is being seen as a problem. Instead of some mechs dropping in one shot (no retaliation fire), it takes two. A Hunchback could (possibly) drop many mechs in a single shot. Now, he has to do it in two. Two shots means someone gets to fire back, maybe even cripple the mech. (Also, AIM FOR THE HUNCH... too pricise as well...)
Of course, we seem to be considering only armor in here. What about the Internal Structure of mechs? Just because a TT mech has 30 armor doesn't mean 30 damage drops it. It would take (critical hits excluded) 45 points of damage to take out said mech.
As far as balance between mechs, doubling armor did not provide any gaps between classes. If anything, Lights still benefited most as they can go faster and are smallest, which translates to hardest to hit and able to run away and attack again from a different angle. Assaults and heavies are easier to hit, so double armor may give them more armor bonus, but it doesn't counter the ease to hit them with. To really counter this, they can place more weapons on than smaller mechs, their big deal.
Without double armor, 6 PPC Stalkers (before Ghost Heat) would kill just about any mech by shooting a finger or toe of a target. Double armor permitted the higher accuracy portrayed in a faster paced skill game to work in some form of reliability, without straying too far away from the concepts that make Battletech, well... Battletech. If anything is truly the problem, it's convergence, but no one wants to be forced to have to line up and hold shots to hit, and they don't want shots to not hit where they "quickly aim". Understandable, but it would add in a larger skill factor into the game. Do recall that a slower (not worse) convergence would hurt light mechs just as much as it would help them. Fairly hard to keep your reticule on target for a few extra moments to gain good convergence when you are moving so fast yourself. Heck, I tend to splash damage all over my targets with my Spider more often than not now...
Provide input? Be constructive? The OP has been very reasonable debating his side of the argument so far. He doesn't need people to just "throw mud" in here. I'm not going to say you don't precent good points, but your ton in which you have delivered these points makes people not want to like what you say, or even respond nicely back.
Oh, and your statement is not a "closing thread" statement. The OP feels strongly on this topic, and it doesn't hurt to debate it. It's like several of my own topics, like one I had where I was asking for people's opinions on Macros in the game. Ghost heat came in and... well... made the whole point kinda unimportant and took out half the points being made.
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.
Condescending much? Attitude much? So far... you are the one who seems to have no idea what you are talking about. So, mind taking a nice... deep breath and try this in a much better more informative post?
How about coming up with some nice, concret, numbers for us. Take some TT numbers, crunch them by TT standards. Then take some MWO numbers, crunch them. THEN, to prove your point is a proper and solid thought to be considered, take your suggested changes, add in your suggested numbers, and crunch those numbers? This, by the way, is proving your point.
Unlike the OP, who has crunched some numbers, even if we disagree with them, you have failed to crunch anything, besides keys on your keyboard. The OP has been friendly, social, and very point driven. He doesn't see the math that I do, he sees the math in his own perspective, which is fine. So, where is your math? I... don't see any.
If needed, and people suggest I do, I'm tempted to create a graph showing the three points of view I have seen discussed so far. That would be: Base TT (have to have your control data). Double Armor by percentage. Amount of actual points of armor of separation (OP's point of view I presume). Then, the "Just add 25 points of armor to all mechs" points of view. I'll be constructing these graphs as we speak actually.
For the Graphs, I'll be including Stock armor value changes, (projected TT max) Max armor values and changes, and even "how many AC20s to CT would it take to drop the mech" from TT to MWO changes. I'll stick to just four control mechs, Commando, Hunchback, Catapult (unless a different heavy is suggested) and of course the star of the line up is the Atlas. Sounds good? (PS: Braggart, THIS IS SHOWING YOUR NUMBERS, DATA, AND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.)
There is ALWAYS a formula. If you don't have even a base formula and number set, good luck even trying to convince people that you are right.
Oh, and your percentages concept is kinda right, kinda not. Remember, double armor is a "skill" that comes free. If Atlases "benefit" from this "free skill" more, than isn't it alright and makes sense by your own argument that light mechs should benefit even more from things such as speed tweak, as they have to "earn" those skills?
(PS: How is your theoretical raven set up? I don't know about you, but I have a Spider and a Quickdraw that have very similar builds. Each has largest XL engines I can fit. Each has Jump Jets as well and near max armor. The Spider has 1 large and 2 med lasers. My Quickdraw has 2 large and 4 med lasers. Spider is 30 tons, and Quickdraw is 60 tons. Spider works on heat as much as the Quickdraw does (if not better), moves faster, and carries half the armaments of it's larger brother. Still not seeing a problem with how weight to weapons to armor to heat to damage is a problem. A light mech pays for it's speed in many ways, but can be balanced just fine as well, if you know what you are doing.)
incorrect.
For an assault to do the same as before, A flat increase would have been required. The assault in fact does better as it has more armor left than previous. All things equal. If you gave all mechs a 25 point increase in armor, after said fight is done. That mech is going to be in a similar condition as before. By doubling the armor, the Mech is going to have much more armor left before, leaving it in a superior state.
Also, lights were hurt by the fact that assaults carry far more armor than before. Which does leave them worse off than before. Barring hit detection issues.
Your suggestion would make the assaults even "weaker" than they currently are. Don't know about you, but I use my speed and agility to stay out of fire lines of my pray. This means I don't attack a larger mech head on, as that is death as it properly should be. Your suggestion would make light mechs almost as tough as their larger brothers. They would, in essence, be fast moving assaults that would become the kings of the game, instead of the mech I'm currently using and having fun with.
As for how mech classes work, I can tell you I've used them all, extensively. I do not see any problems with survivability and damage out put between the different weights. I've used Spiders, Cicadas, Hunchbacks, Centurions, Quickdraws, Dragons, Stalkers and jumped into a trial Awesome for a few matches. (Still want an Awesome.) So, I consider myself fairly well diverse and well rounded player in the game. I have experienced every weapon and weight class there is.
as i have said before. Lights are only hard to kill right now because of hit detection issues. Several months ago, we had pretty damn perfect hit detection, and lights were getting dropped in 2 shots by people who could aim. the forums were aflame of people just getting cut down. Now PGI screwed something up bad and hit detection has now gotten so bad that shots dont even register on a non-moving atlas alot of the time.
As soon as hit detection gets fixed, you will see exactly what we saw before. Lights getting cut down in a matter of seconds.
Wanna know what I was running back then? A slow Cicada set up like a Hollander III, my Quickdraw, and my Spider. Wasn't having a problem with any of them. My lights wasn't dieing as fast as my Quickdraw, as everyone was just legging my Quickdraw then for, what seemed to be, very little reason... But seriuosly, I may take more damage in my Quickdraw (heavier mechs), but I survive about the same amount of time in my fast mechs on average as I do my slower mechs.
PS: Without double armor, lights would be getting dropped in 1 shot on average. How much flame do you think would be heard from that on the forums? Could the forums take the heat, or would they melt?
Of course, we seem to be considering only armor in here. What about the Internal Structure of mechs? Just because a TT mech has 30 armor doesn't mean 30 damage drops it. It would take (critical hits excluded) 45 points of damage to take out said mech.
As far as balance between mechs, doubling armor did not provide any gaps between classes. If anything, Lights still benefited most as they can go faster and are smallest, which translates to hardest to hit and able to run away and attack again from a different angle. Assaults and heavies are easier to hit, so double armor may give them more armor bonus, but it doesn't counter the ease to hit them with. To really counter this, they can place more weapons on than smaller mechs, their big deal.
Without double armor, 6 PPC Stalkers (before Ghost Heat) would kill just about any mech by shooting a finger or toe of a target. Double armor permitted the higher accuracy portrayed in a faster paced skill game to work in some form of reliability, without straying too far away from the concepts that make Battletech, well... Battletech. If anything is truly the problem, it's convergence, but no one wants to be forced to have to line up and hold shots to hit, and they don't want shots to not hit where they "quickly aim". Understandable, but it would add in a larger skill factor into the game. Do recall that a slower (not worse) convergence would hurt light mechs just as much as it would help them. Fairly hard to keep your reticule on target for a few extra moments to gain good convergence when you are moving so fast yourself. Heck, I tend to splash damage all over my targets with my Spider more often than not now...
Reptilizer, on 15 August 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:
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 skillTM) 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 pobablyTM 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.
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 skillTM) 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 pobablyTM 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.
Provide input? Be constructive? The OP has been very reasonable debating his side of the argument so far. He doesn't need people to just "throw mud" in here. I'm not going to say you don't precent good points, but your ton in which you have delivered these points makes people not want to like what you say, or even respond nicely back.
Oh, and your statement is not a "closing thread" statement. The OP feels strongly on this topic, and it doesn't hurt to debate it. It's like several of my own topics, like one I had where I was asking for people's opinions on Macros in the game. Ghost heat came in and... well... made the whole point kinda unimportant and took out half the points being made.
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:
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.
Condescending much? Attitude much? So far... you are the one who seems to have no idea what you are talking about. So, mind taking a nice... deep breath and try this in a much better more informative post?
How about coming up with some nice, concret, numbers for us. Take some TT numbers, crunch them by TT standards. Then take some MWO numbers, crunch them. THEN, to prove your point is a proper and solid thought to be considered, take your suggested changes, add in your suggested numbers, and crunch those numbers? This, by the way, is proving your point.
Unlike the OP, who has crunched some numbers, even if we disagree with them, you have failed to crunch anything, besides keys on your keyboard. The OP has been friendly, social, and very point driven. He doesn't see the math that I do, he sees the math in his own perspective, which is fine. So, where is your math? I... don't see any.
If needed, and people suggest I do, I'm tempted to create a graph showing the three points of view I have seen discussed so far. That would be: Base TT (have to have your control data). Double Armor by percentage. Amount of actual points of armor of separation (OP's point of view I presume). Then, the "Just add 25 points of armor to all mechs" points of view. I'll be constructing these graphs as we speak actually.
For the Graphs, I'll be including Stock armor value changes, (projected TT max) Max armor values and changes, and even "how many AC20s to CT would it take to drop the mech" from TT to MWO changes. I'll stick to just four control mechs, Commando, Hunchback, Catapult (unless a different heavy is suggested) and of course the star of the line up is the Atlas. Sounds good? (PS: Braggart, THIS IS SHOWING YOUR NUMBERS, DATA, AND EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.)
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:
There is no formula because the armor values were never based on a formula that was based on a real time fps pinpoint accuracy game. Also. The formula is simple. Flat increase instead of %. How hard to formula is that. With a flat increase, everyone gets the same, and % favors whoever has more of whatever is being increased at the time.
The values were taken from a table top game which had a formula based on BV for determining the value of a mech.
This is a real time game, that took table top values and for the most part has not attempted to adjust them to fit better with what a real time game with pinpoint accuracy vs a table top game which is turn based, and randomly rolled dice.
If you notice leg armor. The amount of leg armor on a mech is huge, which is because leg armor was increased, then further increased on top of that.
The fact is anytime you get into a % based increase on anything. The weapons/skills/etc/etc/etc that are increased by a percent get greater gains than those without. This is further exasperates the problem when you have mechs that has such a huge variety, that a simple % increase can result in 1 mech getting 5-6 times as much benefit from an increase.
You will all see the problem and how bad it is as soon as hit detection is up to snuff, the idea lights are fine is based on most shots not counting. When hit detection finally does work. The fact that a light mech can still get 1 or 2 shot when it has to hit 10-12 times in that same time frame to win will truly show how much double armor hurt this game. And it is not about doubled armor in a single location, it is about doubled armor everywhere, and because damage is spread on a mech. Mechs that got jack from doubled armor are still in more trouble than those that got massive boosts.
We had for a short time a period where hit detection was great, and during that month, it basically took every single light from the field, because they were getting 2 shot all the time.
Like most people think that the PPC got a 1 second increase in rate of fire. when it was actually less when you factor in fast fire because you fire 5% faster. SO its 3.8 recharge instead of a 2.85. Sure its subtle in that instance, but how about when you take a catapult and get it 20% torso twist.
Lets look at a mech having 20 double heatsinks. It has 3.54 heat dissapation, and 65.4 capacity. coolrun turns it to 3.81 dissapation and containment turns it to 71.94 capacity. Then lets elite those 4.07 dissapation and 78.48 caps. Now lets look at a light mech with 14 dbls has a 2.5 dissapation, and 55 cap, and coolrun and cap increase it to 2.7 and 60.5 and elite it 2.88 & 66. an elited assault mech with 6 more heatsinks has 22 more heat cap, and 1.25 better heat dissapation. All because of 10% increases. Why does the stalker deserve that, it is already backing 4 times the firepower of the raven. Why does it also get to fire far more often, and get more alphas before overheat.
The values were taken from a table top game which had a formula based on BV for determining the value of a mech.
This is a real time game, that took table top values and for the most part has not attempted to adjust them to fit better with what a real time game with pinpoint accuracy vs a table top game which is turn based, and randomly rolled dice.
If you notice leg armor. The amount of leg armor on a mech is huge, which is because leg armor was increased, then further increased on top of that.
The fact is anytime you get into a % based increase on anything. The weapons/skills/etc/etc/etc that are increased by a percent get greater gains than those without. This is further exasperates the problem when you have mechs that has such a huge variety, that a simple % increase can result in 1 mech getting 5-6 times as much benefit from an increase.
You will all see the problem and how bad it is as soon as hit detection is up to snuff, the idea lights are fine is based on most shots not counting. When hit detection finally does work. The fact that a light mech can still get 1 or 2 shot when it has to hit 10-12 times in that same time frame to win will truly show how much double armor hurt this game. And it is not about doubled armor in a single location, it is about doubled armor everywhere, and because damage is spread on a mech. Mechs that got jack from doubled armor are still in more trouble than those that got massive boosts.
We had for a short time a period where hit detection was great, and during that month, it basically took every single light from the field, because they were getting 2 shot all the time.
Like most people think that the PPC got a 1 second increase in rate of fire. when it was actually less when you factor in fast fire because you fire 5% faster. SO its 3.8 recharge instead of a 2.85. Sure its subtle in that instance, but how about when you take a catapult and get it 20% torso twist.
Lets look at a mech having 20 double heatsinks. It has 3.54 heat dissapation, and 65.4 capacity. coolrun turns it to 3.81 dissapation and containment turns it to 71.94 capacity. Then lets elite those 4.07 dissapation and 78.48 caps. Now lets look at a light mech with 14 dbls has a 2.5 dissapation, and 55 cap, and coolrun and cap increase it to 2.7 and 60.5 and elite it 2.88 & 66. an elited assault mech with 6 more heatsinks has 22 more heat cap, and 1.25 better heat dissapation. All because of 10% increases. Why does the stalker deserve that, it is already backing 4 times the firepower of the raven. Why does it also get to fire far more often, and get more alphas before overheat.
There is ALWAYS a formula. If you don't have even a base formula and number set, good luck even trying to convince people that you are right.
Oh, and your percentages concept is kinda right, kinda not. Remember, double armor is a "skill" that comes free. If Atlases "benefit" from this "free skill" more, than isn't it alright and makes sense by your own argument that light mechs should benefit even more from things such as speed tweak, as they have to "earn" those skills?
(PS: How is your theoretical raven set up? I don't know about you, but I have a Spider and a Quickdraw that have very similar builds. Each has largest XL engines I can fit. Each has Jump Jets as well and near max armor. The Spider has 1 large and 2 med lasers. My Quickdraw has 2 large and 4 med lasers. Spider is 30 tons, and Quickdraw is 60 tons. Spider works on heat as much as the Quickdraw does (if not better), moves faster, and carries half the armaments of it's larger brother. Still not seeing a problem with how weight to weapons to armor to heat to damage is a problem. A light mech pays for it's speed in many ways, but can be balanced just fine as well, if you know what you are doing.)
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:
incorrect.
For an assault to do the same as before, A flat increase would have been required. The assault in fact does better as it has more armor left than previous. All things equal. If you gave all mechs a 25 point increase in armor, after said fight is done. That mech is going to be in a similar condition as before. By doubling the armor, the Mech is going to have much more armor left before, leaving it in a superior state.
Also, lights were hurt by the fact that assaults carry far more armor than before. Which does leave them worse off than before. Barring hit detection issues.
Your suggestion would make the assaults even "weaker" than they currently are. Don't know about you, but I use my speed and agility to stay out of fire lines of my pray. This means I don't attack a larger mech head on, as that is death as it properly should be. Your suggestion would make light mechs almost as tough as their larger brothers. They would, in essence, be fast moving assaults that would become the kings of the game, instead of the mech I'm currently using and having fun with.
As for how mech classes work, I can tell you I've used them all, extensively. I do not see any problems with survivability and damage out put between the different weights. I've used Spiders, Cicadas, Hunchbacks, Centurions, Quickdraws, Dragons, Stalkers and jumped into a trial Awesome for a few matches. (Still want an Awesome.) So, I consider myself fairly well diverse and well rounded player in the game. I have experienced every weapon and weight class there is.
Braggart, on 15 August 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:
as i have said before. Lights are only hard to kill right now because of hit detection issues. Several months ago, we had pretty damn perfect hit detection, and lights were getting dropped in 2 shots by people who could aim. the forums were aflame of people just getting cut down. Now PGI screwed something up bad and hit detection has now gotten so bad that shots dont even register on a non-moving atlas alot of the time.
As soon as hit detection gets fixed, you will see exactly what we saw before. Lights getting cut down in a matter of seconds.
Wanna know what I was running back then? A slow Cicada set up like a Hollander III, my Quickdraw, and my Spider. Wasn't having a problem with any of them. My lights wasn't dieing as fast as my Quickdraw, as everyone was just legging my Quickdraw then for, what seemed to be, very little reason... But seriuosly, I may take more damage in my Quickdraw (heavier mechs), but I survive about the same amount of time in my fast mechs on average as I do my slower mechs.
PS: Without double armor, lights would be getting dropped in 1 shot on average. How much flame do you think would be heard from that on the forums? Could the forums take the heat, or would they melt?
#99
-
-
- The Seeker
- 8,586 posts
Member
- LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion
Posted 15 August 2013 - 09:45 PM
Let me refer you to wonders of graph making. I now know how to make graphs in Adobe Illustrator, which is kinda handy. Sorry, I couldn't seem to get it to be color coded, so pardon the line graph a little. Just suffice to say it says the same date as the bar graph under it.
All Graphs are only comparing front center torso for all mechs at stock.
Honestly, I think these graphs represent the two different thoughts on the subject, and it's all a matter of perspective. The top line graph makes it look like heavier mechs are benefiting more from double armor. The bar graph though shows that all mechs (except the Commando, which I'll explain in a moment) gain an equal share of armor, thus an equal share of survivability.
For some reason, the Commando seemed to only gain 1.5% increase to it's stock armor values from TT to MWO, instead of the 2.0% everyone else got. Don't understand this flaw.
(All data gathered from Smurfy and from http://bg.battletech...th_Counters.pdf )
This is the graph of just "adding 25 points clear across the board".
Once more the line graph (now) shows the even progression some of you desire, but look at the data in the more informative Bar Graph. That Commando got some really large bump up! That's just... insane!
And, for a final graph on just armor, I present a Spider to Atlas Pie Graph, from TT to MWO to "25 points added across the board". Just for a final graph. (Is someone else wants to work on "shots of an AC20 to CT before death" graphs, that'd be great. (Subsituting Spider for Commando, as each followed the double rule, unlike the mystery produced from the Commando armor which didn't seem to get truly doubled.)
If you asked me, the Pie graph wins for the best representation of data fields. The two graphs from TT to MWO is exactly the same, just larger because there are more points. The bottom one shows how much stronger lights would become with any kind of flat increase rate.
The argument I am seeing, translated into Rich and poorer references, goes like this:
The rich are rich, the poor are poor.
The rich suddenly is given twice what they already own. YEAH THEM!
The poor also gains twice as much. Still yeah, but not as much yeah as the rich.
Wouldn't the poor still be able to buy twice as much as they use to be able to get, just like the rich?
Add in if prices also doubled, did it really effect either party at all to gain double their money?
Example:
Rich has $1000. Poor has $100.
Each gain double!
Rich now has $2000. Poor now has $200.
Rich paid $1000 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Poor paid $100 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Prices go up double.
Rich now pay $2000 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Poor now pay $200 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Did the doubling really effect either one of their lives?
In MWO terms: (using random numbers)
Atlas can take 4 shots from an AC20. Spider 1.
Atlas gains double armor. Can now take 4 shots from AC20.
Spider gains double armor. Can not take 2 shots from AC20.
Did there really become a difference?
Don't know about you, but I kinda like the idea of surviving a single AC20 shot in my Spider, instead of turning around a corning and dieing without even seeing who killed me yet (AKA: I died before I could process to run away or even do any damage). Plus... Pie would never lie to you. Pie is yummy.
All Graphs are only comparing front center torso for all mechs at stock.
Honestly, I think these graphs represent the two different thoughts on the subject, and it's all a matter of perspective. The top line graph makes it look like heavier mechs are benefiting more from double armor. The bar graph though shows that all mechs (except the Commando, which I'll explain in a moment) gain an equal share of armor, thus an equal share of survivability.
For some reason, the Commando seemed to only gain 1.5% increase to it's stock armor values from TT to MWO, instead of the 2.0% everyone else got. Don't understand this flaw.
(All data gathered from Smurfy and from http://bg.battletech...th_Counters.pdf )
This is the graph of just "adding 25 points clear across the board".
Once more the line graph (now) shows the even progression some of you desire, but look at the data in the more informative Bar Graph. That Commando got some really large bump up! That's just... insane!
And, for a final graph on just armor, I present a Spider to Atlas Pie Graph, from TT to MWO to "25 points added across the board". Just for a final graph. (Is someone else wants to work on "shots of an AC20 to CT before death" graphs, that'd be great. (Subsituting Spider for Commando, as each followed the double rule, unlike the mystery produced from the Commando armor which didn't seem to get truly doubled.)
If you asked me, the Pie graph wins for the best representation of data fields. The two graphs from TT to MWO is exactly the same, just larger because there are more points. The bottom one shows how much stronger lights would become with any kind of flat increase rate.
The argument I am seeing, translated into Rich and poorer references, goes like this:
The rich are rich, the poor are poor.
The rich suddenly is given twice what they already own. YEAH THEM!
The poor also gains twice as much. Still yeah, but not as much yeah as the rich.
Wouldn't the poor still be able to buy twice as much as they use to be able to get, just like the rich?
Add in if prices also doubled, did it really effect either party at all to gain double their money?
Example:
Rich has $1000. Poor has $100.
Each gain double!
Rich now has $2000. Poor now has $200.
Rich paid $1000 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Poor paid $100 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Prices go up double.
Rich now pay $2000 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Poor now pay $200 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Did the doubling really effect either one of their lives?
In MWO terms: (using random numbers)
Atlas can take 4 shots from an AC20. Spider 1.
Atlas gains double armor. Can now take 4 shots from AC20.
Spider gains double armor. Can not take 2 shots from AC20.
Did there really become a difference?
Don't know about you, but I kinda like the idea of surviving a single AC20 shot in my Spider, instead of turning around a corning and dieing without even seeing who killed me yet (AKA: I died before I could process to run away or even do any damage). Plus... Pie would never lie to you. Pie is yummy.
#100
Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:14 PM
Tesunie, on 15 August 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:
Let me refer you to wonders of graph making. I now know how to make graphs in Adobe Illustrator, which is kinda handy. Sorry, I couldn't seem to get it to be color coded, so pardon the line graph a little. Just suffice to say it says the same date as the bar graph under it.
All Graphs are only comparing front center torso for all mechs at stock.
Honestly, I think these graphs represent the two different thoughts on the subject, and it's all a matter of perspective. The top line graph makes it look like heavier mechs are benefiting more from double armor. The bar graph though shows that all mechs (except the Commando, which I'll explain in a moment) gain an equal share of armor, thus an equal share of survivability.
For some reason, the Commando seemed to only gain 1.5% increase to it's stock armor values from TT to MWO, instead of the 2.0% everyone else got. Don't understand this flaw.
(All data gathered from Smurfy and from http://bg.battletech...th_Counters.pdf )
This is the graph of just "adding 25 points clear across the board".
Once more the line graph (now) shows the even progression some of you desire, but look at the data in the more informative Bar Graph. That Commando got some really large bump up! That's just... insane!
And, for a final graph on just armor, I present a Spider to Atlas Pie Graph, from TT to MWO to "25 points added across the board". Just for a final graph. (Is someone else wants to work on "shots of an AC20 to CT before death" graphs, that'd be great. (Subsituting Spider for Commando, as each followed the double rule, unlike the mystery produced from the Commando armor which didn't seem to get truly doubled.)
If you asked me, the Pie graph wins for the best representation of data fields. The two graphs from TT to MWO is exactly the same, just larger because there are more points. The bottom one shows how much stronger lights would become with any kind of flat increase rate.
The argument I am seeing, translated into Rich and poorer references, goes like this:
The rich are rich, the poor are poor.
The rich suddenly is given twice what they already own. YEAH THEM!
The poor also gains twice as much. Still yeah, but not as much yeah as the rich.
Wouldn't the poor still be able to buy twice as much as they use to be able to get, just like the rich?
Add in if prices also doubled, did it really effect either party at all to gain double their money?
Example:
Rich has $1000. Poor has $100.
Each gain double!
Rich now has $2000. Poor now has $200.
Rich paid $1000 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Poor paid $100 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Prices go up double.
Rich now pay $2000 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Poor now pay $200 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Did the doubling really effect either one of their lives?
In MWO terms: (using random numbers)
Atlas can take 4 shots from an AC20. Spider 1.
Atlas gains double armor. Can now take 4 shots from AC20.
Spider gains double armor. Can not take 2 shots from AC20.
Did there really become a difference?
Don't know about you, but I kinda like the idea of surviving a single AC20 shot in my Spider, instead of turning around a corning and dieing without even seeing who killed me yet (AKA: I died before I could process to run away or even do any damage). Plus... Pie would never lie to you. Pie is yummy.
All Graphs are only comparing front center torso for all mechs at stock.
Honestly, I think these graphs represent the two different thoughts on the subject, and it's all a matter of perspective. The top line graph makes it look like heavier mechs are benefiting more from double armor. The bar graph though shows that all mechs (except the Commando, which I'll explain in a moment) gain an equal share of armor, thus an equal share of survivability.
For some reason, the Commando seemed to only gain 1.5% increase to it's stock armor values from TT to MWO, instead of the 2.0% everyone else got. Don't understand this flaw.
(All data gathered from Smurfy and from http://bg.battletech...th_Counters.pdf )
This is the graph of just "adding 25 points clear across the board".
Once more the line graph (now) shows the even progression some of you desire, but look at the data in the more informative Bar Graph. That Commando got some really large bump up! That's just... insane!
And, for a final graph on just armor, I present a Spider to Atlas Pie Graph, from TT to MWO to "25 points added across the board". Just for a final graph. (Is someone else wants to work on "shots of an AC20 to CT before death" graphs, that'd be great. (Subsituting Spider for Commando, as each followed the double rule, unlike the mystery produced from the Commando armor which didn't seem to get truly doubled.)
If you asked me, the Pie graph wins for the best representation of data fields. The two graphs from TT to MWO is exactly the same, just larger because there are more points. The bottom one shows how much stronger lights would become with any kind of flat increase rate.
The argument I am seeing, translated into Rich and poorer references, goes like this:
The rich are rich, the poor are poor.
The rich suddenly is given twice what they already own. YEAH THEM!
The poor also gains twice as much. Still yeah, but not as much yeah as the rich.
Wouldn't the poor still be able to buy twice as much as they use to be able to get, just like the rich?
Add in if prices also doubled, did it really effect either party at all to gain double their money?
Example:
Rich has $1000. Poor has $100.
Each gain double!
Rich now has $2000. Poor now has $200.
Rich paid $1000 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Poor paid $100 rent. They now have twice as much money to spend!
Prices go up double.
Rich now pay $2000 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Poor now pay $200 for rent. Balances out extra money.
Did the doubling really effect either one of their lives?
In MWO terms: (using random numbers)
Atlas can take 4 shots from an AC20. Spider 1.
Atlas gains double armor. Can now take 4 shots from AC20.
Spider gains double armor. Can not take 2 shots from AC20.
Did there really become a difference?
Don't know about you, but I kinda like the idea of surviving a single AC20 shot in my Spider, instead of turning around a corning and dieing without even seeing who killed me yet (AKA: I died before I could process to run away or even do any damage). Plus... Pie would never lie to you. Pie is yummy.
Your Pie is a Lie. A Spider on TT has 8 points f frontal CT armor. MWO has 16 which is... double. That you cannot take an AC20 to the chest in a Spider is spot on. The TT Spider loses all is frontal armor, Internal structure and some rear armor if it were still hanging on some how. MWO's Spider loses all armor on front and 4 structure. Dead is still dead.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
