32 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Currently, in order to differentiate mechs in their movement speeds and maneuverability, there is a limit on engine based on their stock engine. (Like why an AS7-D can't load a 400 rated engine, but the BH can)

I propose a similar change to armor profiles.

Max armor = 120% stock armor. (Arbitrary numbers for effect, can go higher or lower.)
Max armor with Ferro = 130% stock armor. (Gives Ferro a little use than a small weight decrease.)


This would allow mechs that are built on armor (like the atlas and awesome) to shine in that area compared to their class-mates. (Like the victor, which comes with much lower armor, but a much bigger engine.
)
Currently there is no reason to use an awesome over a victor (unless you're wanting to shotgun LRMs)
No reason to use a hunchback over a shadowhawk
and other examples

But giving the armor based mechs (who have their model sized increased accordingly it seems) the armored edge over their more mobile or firepower heavy brethren would create more individuality in mech builds. (And trust me, I'm a victor/Shawk pilot, I'm calling for a nerf to my own mechs, I think it's for the greater good of the game.)

What do you guys think?

[Koniving]

I've been lobbying for something similar for a while. Though I don't want to vote on the specific arbitrary numbers here. My votes, not counted above, are instead Yes, limit max armor to X tonnage above standard armor tonnage, and yes allow Ferro to match that same armor tonnage.

You're not the first to propose this, and in fact I have working demonstrations. However, I have not been using percentages due to imbalances that a percentage could represent.

In the spoiler I explain why the use of percentages is bad, and then bring forth my own version of this same idea that I've been working on since January.

Spoiler

For example 20% more of 128 is 153.6 and 20% more of 608 is 729.6.

608 - 128 = 480 point difference.
729.6 - 153.6 = 576 point difference.
This means some mechs will have clear superiority over others beyond what is intended; essentially annihilating any and all reason to use a lighter mech.

We want to preserve good reasons to play them and preserve good reasons to play the lesser-armored mechs. For example between a Cataphract 3D you want to play it because it jumps and has good weapons even with the weakest armor while a 4X you want to play for its heavy armor; but if the 4X has max armor beyond the distance between the stock versions then you are simply gimping yourself by using a 3D and that will anger a lot of people.

A percentage will destroy balance. Truth be told, it's the very reason we have ghost heat. A percentage enhanced threshold and a percentage enhanced cooling and now due to those percentages you have DHS that after the percentages increase your cooling beyond 2.0 + the increased threshold. You might not know it by when you reach 17 DHS, the average cooling per DHS is 2.05. o.O; And the higher you go, the greater it gets.

But back on topic!

My own idea seeks to preserve the stock and lore by doing using a specific tonnage instead and applying it universally. Lets say we take its tonnage and add 3 tons as an arbitrary number. 3 tons of standard armor is 96 points.
128 + 96 = 224.
608 + 96 = 704.

608 - 128 = 480.
704 - 224 = 480.
The margins are perfectly maintained. It's essentially stock + x amount = stock enhanced. No secret balancing issues to creep up!

My most recently posted example is here and within the spoiler is another link comparing an Awesome to a Victor, and a Highlander Locust team against a twin Shadowhawk team. There's also this file that me and Gasoline are working on. It lists an armor and engine overhaul with a basic rule:

Variant's stock armor tonnage + # tons of armor = new max armor tonnage.

Note the emphasis on "tonnage." So 6.5 tons standard or 6.5 tons Ferro.

An example: most Locusts have 128 points of standard armor. 32 points are in a ton on MWO.
128 / 32 = 4 tons.
Lets say "+1 ton" is the new max for all mechs. That's + 32 points.
Locust now has 128 + 32 = 5 tons = 160.
What if it was Ferro?
4 + 1 ton is still 5 tons and Ferro is 36 points per ton. 180 points of armor ferro for the Locust.

But Kon! Most of the Locusts and the Jenner D have 128 points of armor!
Indeed.
So what makes them different? Structure remains unchanged.
Structure is found by taking tabletop's max armor per tonnage (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, etc. through 100) and adding 6 (to change the 9 cockpit structure to 15 cockpit structure).
All 20 ton mechs have a structure of 69 + 6 = 75.
All 35 ton mechs have a structure of 117 + 6 = 123.

So for this comparison the Locust has Structure + standard armor = 235.
The Jenner D has structure + standard armor = 283.

But Kon! What about the Jenner K with its 125 points?
125 / 32 = 3.90625. That is not an interval of 0.5 or 1. Therefore that is invalid and an error on PGI's part. It's 128. The D and K are both listed on the tech manuals as 4 tons of armor. One just has a rear-facing mounted missile launcher.

Anyway... I'll let the links above say the rest.

Even so, remember that this is still a work in progress, otherwise I'd have a similar thread like this up. It's mostly the engines and the arbitrary number of 3 tons that are still in consideration. I'm currently thinking 2 tons (64 standard or 72 ferro) + 6 rating (30 point) increase from stock engine. Though there are abnormalities to deal with.

It's essentially the same thing but uses a solid number instead of a percentage. It also includes ready-made examples for comparison and slight engine modifications to keep mechs in check too.

Edited by Koniving, 28 April 2014 - 09:34 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

By the way, Kon ... the JR7-D carries 4 tons of standard armor (64 points). The JR7-K carries 3.5 tons of Ferro-Fibrous armor (62.72 points, rounded down to 62 points). The missing half-ton goes for CASE to protect the SRM ammo. The JR7-K in MW:O is supposed to have 124 points of FF armor, but due to rounding, it gets 125.

And both the -D and -K have a single forward-facing SRM-4 launcher. I don't know where you got that either one has a rear-facing launcher.

The "stock + three tons = maximum armor" is actually a good idea. I think anything that highlights the role a 'Mech was designed for is a good thing.

But we would also need more speed limitations for that to work. Something like "stock engine rating + 10 = maximum rating." Why? Because currently, all 'Mechs are effing speed demons. Atlases are going faster than they should, which means heavies need to go faster than they should, which means mediums need to go faster than they should, which means lights can't go fast enough to survive.

A Raven 3L was designed to go an average speed for a light (97.2 kph) and have electronics galore. A Jenner sacrifices armor for superior speed (113.4 kph), maneuverability (5 jump jets) and firepower. A Locust sacrifices firepower for speed (129.6 kph) and pretty good armor coverage for a 20-tonner. A Commando goes average speed (97.2 kph) and sacrifices armor coverage to have a heavy weapons payload. The Spider sacrifices armor and weaponry for speed (129.6 kph) and maneuverability (8 jump jets). They shouldn't all be going near the same speeds. There definitely shouldn't be any Commandos or Ravens going 170 kph.

It's currently way too easy to min-max your way to a 'Mech that is performing nothing like its intended role.

[DeadlyNerd]

I'd have to reorganize my garage, but I'd be perfectly fine with this. It's easy to implement(a constraint to the database, an "if" check to the method that displays mech armor, and method that adds mech armor), but makes a rather significant change.

edit: Yes, I also support Koniving's point purely because this :

[image removed]

Edited by miSs, 29 April 2014 - 07:52 AM.
off topic + inappropriate

[Demuder]

This is a great idea. I am not smart enough to understand Koniving's variation and why he is opposed to a percentage increase on some mechs, but I will take his word for it.

Unfortunately, like so many other great ideas, I fear it's just a thought experiment, considering PGI's track record on improving the game.

[Livewyr]

I had a big long post with a counter proposal, but it wasn't all that different in the end:

So, here are the problems I want to solve.

Your method- adding 3 tons would be a huge improvement to light mechs. (The Jenner F would have nearly as much armor as a stock Hunchback, and the LCT 1M would go from 1-shot to a couple shots)

However, it really doesn't do much for the heavies and assaults. They're just getting a universal rubber stamp bump across the board, which doesn't really highlight the armor differences the way that engine differences are highlighted. The differences aren't magnified.

My method- adding a flat percentage of available armor space (20/30%) doesn't do too much for lightly armored light mechs, especially the 1M or some others which would be 1shot, but still ok for the JR7 F, lol.
It helps armored mechs really shine (AWS with about 600 armor, or more with FF looks more appealing when compared to the 400-450 or so armor of the VTR) and really gives FF something to be proud of.


---------------------------------------
So perhaps a synthesis: A flat 3 tons above standard issue to float all the boats to at least survivable while maintaining some individuality between them, and in addition to that: Ferro Fibrous Armor increases the maximum capacity beyond that by 20ish %

LCT 1M (32) + 96 = 128 (154 FF)
RVN 3L (161) + 96 = 257 (308 FF)
JR7 F (224) + 96 = 320 (384 FF)

CN9 D (272) + 96 = 368 (441 FF)
CN9 AL (338) + 96 = 434 (520 FF)

CTF 3D (352) + 96 = 448 (538 FF)
CTF 4X (434) + 96 = 530 (636 FF)

VTR 9S (336) + 96 = 432 (518 FF)
VTR 9K (400) + 96 = 496 (595 FF)
AWS 8Q (480) + 96 = 576 (691 FF)
AS7 D (608) + 96 = 704 (844 FF)

Granted some of these armor values are staggering (850 Atlas.. hehe) but keep in mind, that is merely what is available to them to mount. 844pts is 26.3 minus 12% = 23.1 tons ...so a heavy price for being near invincible.

This also allows FF to be more useful, and allows for individualization between chassis and variants.


--------------------------------------

Thoughts?

Edited by Livewyr, 29 April 2014 - 05:20 AM.

[Cart]

I voted "No". I don't think your basic idea is bad....I really don't...you're aiming in the right direction, but I think it's not the right way. Sure, you could boost the Armour of some Mechs who are know for it's stability in exchang for less mobility, but on the other hand, that would further limit the mechs free tonnage for weapons, equipment, ammo or engine (and in this way even lesser mobility).

Maybe the goal could be achieved by design quirks like "lower crit chance" or things like that.
(Or broken hitboxes, like the spider has...no, sot seriously... )

But just allowing these mechs to pack some mor armour, wouldn't be a real buff for them in my yes...

Edited by Cart, 29 April 2014 - 05:36 AM.

[Livewyr]

Cart, on 29 April 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

I voted "No". I don't think your basic idea is bad....I really don't...you're aiming in the right direction, but I think it's not the right way. Sure, you could boost the Armour of some Mechs who are know for it's stability in exchang for less mobility, but on the other hand, that would further limit the mechs free tonnage for weapons, equipment, ammo or engine (and in this way even lesser mobility).

Maybe the goal could be achieved by design quirks like "lower crit chance" or things like that.
(Or broken hitboxes, like the spider has...no, sot seriously... )

But just allowing these mechs to pack some mor armour, wouldn't be a real buff for them in my yes...

I see what you mean in that it really wouldn't change much in how they are now (at least not with the hybrid idea)

But here is what I want to solve:
All variants of weight brackets of mechs can achieve the same amount of armor, regardless of stock armor value.
Not all variants can achieve the same mobility. (Prime examples: CTF 4X vs 3D, or VTRs vs AWS)

As a result of this, the only reason you would use an AWS is to shotgun a lot of LRMs out of the 8R, the VTR is better in about every regard. (Same Armor Values, Smaller Profile, Much bigger engines, more weapon variation, JJs, etc..)
The awesome was awesome for two reasons: Heavy firepower, and even heavier armor for its weight. It paid for that in speed.
The victor was a unique support in that it had heavy firepower, and high speed. It paid for that in armor.

Since the engine is the only thing related to stock values, the victor can have heavy armor, heavy firepower, AND/OR high speed.
The awesome can have heavy armor, heavy firepower, but not high speed.

So how do we solve that without disabling the lightest mechs (like the darn LCT) and without doing special variant number fudging? (Giving a mech arbitrarily more armor, or lower "critical" chance.)

[Koniving]

Livewyr, on 29 April 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

Thoughts?

Uneven numbers for armor cause other problems, too. Got to be careful of that. As I said, percentages create problems. Where would you put that extra point? The head? It'd be the only place to put it. What about when you get half of a point? What do you do when you get a decimal value of armor?

The reason 36 was used, is that literally is what "12%" rounded out to. And 12% as you saw in my own demonstrations are pretty hefty numbers. It's exactly what 1 ton of ferro in MWO is right now, and you noticed the math worked out perfectly. It was able to turn a Huginn without ferro into a Raven 2X's armor. It also works with every ferro mech in MWO, bringing them to identical values to their non-ferro counter parts who have identical tonnage.

When you mess with something that works... you have to bandage them. Ghost heat was the bandage PGI had to use after using percentages in the pilot skill tree which ultimately created "1.4" DHS that combined with the "2.0 DHS" in the engine, come out to "2.1" for all DHS after 15% cooling increases. Add the thresholds, and instead of 30 threshold with 2.0 cooling per DHS per 10 seconds, we have 80 to 100+ threshold (10 PPCs and no shutdown!) with 2.1 cooling per DHS per 10 seconds. Is it any wonder we had to have ghost heat? Percentages always cause problems because ultimately it becomes "the more you have the bigger your benefit from an arbitrary percentage." Which means stack more, exploit more, get more.

A percentage on repair and rearm gave 80% more ammo free. Instead of helping the little guy, it charged him for 20% of his one ton ammo. But the big guy with the lots of ammo? He had 12 tons of ammo, and only had to pay for 2.4 tons to refill it. That is NOT fair. It never is! It began giving 40% of repairs free. So players didn't repair. It gimped everyone. It never is fair. And an unfair system can be exploited.

20% is also well beyond what Ferro's intended bonus is supposed to be. If you want that kind of bonus, just slap on Hardened Armor and be done. You're asking for too much benefit with too little sacrifice.

The universal number maintains stock. Literally.
As demonstrated before, the exact armor difference between a light and an assault is kept 100% of the time.
With your system, the only way to play is with assaults, or any mech with high armor as anything else is purely freaking gimped. "Cataphract 3D? Are you stupid? The meta is 4X all the way." "You brought a Raven 3-L? Pfft! Man you're stupid the only way to play is with a 4X Raven." "Why'd you bother with a Shadowhawk? The Wolverine has armor rivaling a stock Highlander and that thing can even compete with a Raven 4X."

It'd create a new meta. A meta where all the current meta mechs are worthless and all the high armor ones with ferro are the only competitive units.

With a single arbitrary and universal slider it brings stock to enhanced stock, keeping every mech's universal armor traits and maintaining the balance established for more than 30 years. The only time Battletech was imbalanced was with outside meddling or customization. The max armor to everything b.s.

This way whether it's a Locust versus an Atlas with both having standard armor, with both having ferro armor or both having hardened armor, the difference between an Atlas and a Locust is always maintained in perfect harmony. No "if I do this, I become invincible!" No "My mech normally outclasses mechs 20 tons heavier than me with standard armor, but I can outclass mechs 50 tons heavier with ferro due to a percentage!" meta creating nonsense.

Gotta remember when you design anything, expect people to exploit it... and make sure it can't be exploited.

Edited by Koniving, 29 April 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[DEMAX51]

[Livewyr]

Koniving, the problem with Universal numbers across chassis is:
A number when compared to another number is a percentage, always. (Even if it's 0% or 100%)

The flat 3 tons (96pts) is a monumental percentage to light mechs.
LCT-1M standard armor is 32pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 128, a 300% increase.
RVN-3L standard armor is 161pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 257, a 60% increase.
JR7-F standard armor is 224pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 320, a 43% increase.
CN9-D standard armor is 272pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 368, a 35% increase.
CTF-3D standard armor is 352pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 448, a 27% increase.
CTF-4X standard armor is 434pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 530, a 22% increase.
AWS-8Q standard armor is 480pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 576, a 20% increase.
AS7-D standard armor is 608pts. Adding the flat 3tons/96pts points brings it up to 704, a a 15% increase.

Lights say "THANKS!!!!"
Assault say "Gee, thanks."

You're still giving percentages.. they just boost the smaller mechs with considerably higher percentages than the heavy mechs. Imbalanced by definition.

Edited by Livewyr, 29 April 2014 - 11:11 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

And the across-the-board percentages nearly always benefit heavier chassis over lighter ones. We do not need further reason for people to NOT pilot lights.

There is no universal win here.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 29 April 2014 - 11:23 AM.

[Livewyr]

Durant Carlyle, on 29 April 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

And the across-the-board percentages nearly always benefit heavier chassis. We do not need further reason for people to NOT pilot lights.

We're not looking for reasons for people to *not* pilot lights. We're looking for people to choose mechs overall (lights included) based on an armor increased in the same way that engine increases were allowed. (Based on the stock value.)

Now- given that lights in general have had their engines bumped out to create universal survivability (I forget which Raven it was that originally topped out at 112 that now goes 150 despite it's tiny stock engine) I could see keeping a universal cap based on weight for Light mechs, in effect, exempting them from this change..

Mediums/Heavies/Assaults however still need something to make them worth taking.
Currently VTR > AWS in every capacity except the 8R's missiles.
The AWS goes very slow comparatively because it has a higher stock armor, and therefore a much smaller engine. The VTR can move very quickly because it has a large stock engine and lower armor. The armor on the VTR can be increased to match the AWS, but the engine on the AWS cannot be increased to match the VTR. VTR > AWS.

CTF-3D has a similar effect on the 4X, although fortunately for the 4X, it can mount 4 ballistics, but that is a niche build that still allows the 3D (which can mount an engine rated almost a 100 higher) to mount the same amount of Armor and outperform the 4X in every other capacity.

[Durant Carlyle]

Which is why I said we needed speed changes in addition to the armor changes.

A flat "Default engine rating + 10 = max engine rating" to go with the flat "Default armor tonnage + 3 tons = max armor tonnage."

AWS was meant to be a slow mofo. ALL standard assaults should be slow mofos, except for those specifically designed to be "fast" like the Charger.

[Livewyr]

Durant Carlyle, on 29 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

Which is why I said we needed speed changes in addition to the armor changes.

A flat "Default engine rating + 10 = max engine rating" to go with the flat "Default armor tonnage + 3 tons = max armor tonnage."

AWS was meant to be a slow mofo. ALL standard assaults should be slow mofos, except for those specifically designed to be "fast" like the Charger.

+10 isn't exactly a modification...

Let's see how the clans work out with not being able to change engines at all. (They'll come long before this concept is even thought about on the PGI end.)

[Durant Carlyle]

I suppose I could have suggested a return to speed-step adjustments like MW2 had.

"Your AWS only goes 48.6 kph? Well, the next upgrade is 64.8 kph. And the next after that is 81 kph. No, there are no steps in between -- you can only choose 240, 320, and 400 ratings for your 80-ton 'Mech."

[Cart]

I don't really believe, that few more armour-plates would make the AWS more competitive to the VTR...he would still be a damn big and slow target...making it a little smaller target is another topic...
A percental increase of armour is an extreme risk.
I somehow like Durants idea of the stock-armour-depending max-armour values:

Durant Carlyle, on 29 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

Which is why I said we needed speed changes in addition to the armor changes. A flat "Default engine rating + 10 = max engine rating" to go with the flat "Default armor tonnage + 3 tons = max armor tonnage."

It would make each mech/chassis somewhat unique and use their advantages of the stock, to compensate the weaknesses of it...the exact values have to be found, but the basic idea sounds good...
But the max armour should still be capped...remember, that we have already the doubled armour-values form the tabletop in MWO...
F.e.: The max-armour of an 80-ton Mech in MWO is 494=15,44t. (and that should further be the cap imo)
The most Stock-Awesome have 480=15t.
The Stock-Victors have 336-400=10,5t-12,5t
If we would say that the max-armour for Assault-Mechs is stock-armour+2t (and cap at 394):

• The AWS' could still use the max-armour of 494
  
• The VTR-9B would be limited to 13,5t (432 Std)
  
• The VTR-9K would be limited to 14,5t (464 Std)
  
• The VTR-9S would be limited to 12,5t (400 Std)

That wouldn't cripple the VTR too much, but give the AWS some of the advantage it has in Stock.


The value could be class- or weight-dependant.
F.e.:

• 0-25t Mechs:max-armour=stock-armor+0,5t
  
• 30-50t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+1t
  
• 55-75t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+1,5t
  
• 80-100t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+2t

This are only example-values...not sure if they fit in all cases...

Some examples for Light Mechs:

• RVN-2X would be limited only to the cap of 238
  
• RVN-3L would be limited to 5,5t (176 Std, 197 Ferro)
  
• RVN-4X would be limited only to the cap of 238
  
• JR7-D would be limited to 5t (160 Std, 179 Ferro)
  
• JR7-F would be limited only to the cap of 238
  
• JR7-K would be limited to 4,5t (144 Std, 161 Ferro)

Edited by Cart, 30 April 2014 - 04:39 AM.

[Livewyr]

Cart, on 30 April 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

I don't really believe, that few more armour-plates would make the AWS more competitive to the VTR...he would still be a damn big and slow target...making it a little smaller target is another topic...
A percental increase of armour is an extreme risk.
I somehow like Durants idea of the stock-armour-depending max-armour values:

It would make each mech/chassis somewhat unique and use their advantages of the stock, to compensate the weaknesses of it...

Except that 3 tons general puts them back right where they are now.
Yes the AWS would have significantly more (available) than the VTR, but the VTR would have the current max value for 80ton mechs available to it.. nothing would change for the VTR.

(And as was aptly stated..just being able to add more armor availability to the AWS won't make it competitive.)
The idea is to widen the gap between AWS armor and VTR armor to match the current engine differentiation.
The max engine on the AWS, which has been individually buffed to no avail, is 300 (used to be 280 or so.) Why does the awesome have such a tiny max engine rating? Because it has a smaller stock engine.

In PGI's equation for max engine rating, the awesome had a small x and therefore a small y.
The VTR had a large x and therefore a large y.
When it comes to armor, the starting x doesn't matter, because all mechs of the same weight can have the same armor.
The VTR starts out with much less armor (x) but it doesn't matter because y is absolute value regardless of x.

VTR can have 494 armor, even if it started with 336 (9K)
AWS cannot have 385 engine, because it started out with 240.
I don't think it's fair that the lightly armored mechs can reach the same max armor as the heavier armored mechs, when the heavier armored mechs paid for that armor in the weapons and mobility in that the lighter armored mechs enjoyed.


If the max engine rating can be decided by a blanket equation applied across all mechs, then max armor amount should to.
It would aid in mechs being individual. (Why one would usually choose the CTF-3D over the 4X)
Though it would need individual bits of help in cases like the LCT-1M.

(EDIT: really.. "a-i-d-s" is a bad word? Hope the censor guy never needs help... )

Edited by Livewyr, 30 April 2014 - 04:31 AM.

[Cart]

Did you read my whole post?

After some calculation it should rather look like:

• 0-25t Mechs:max-armour=stock-armor+1t
  
• 30-50t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+1,5t
  
• 55-75t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+2t
  
• 80-100t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+2,5t

And maybe put up the cap a little...for example 16t armour for 80t Mechs.

Edited by Cart, 30 April 2014 - 05:18 AM.

[Livewyr]

Cart, on 30 April 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

Did you read my whole post?

After some calculation it should rather look like:

• 0-25t Mechs:max-armour=stock-armor+1t
  
• 30-50t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+1,5t
  
• 55-75t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+2t
  
• 80-100t Mechs: max-armour=stock-armor+2,5t

And maybe put up the cap a little...for example 16t armour for 80t Mechs.

Your whole post wasn't finished being edited when I read it... (note time stamp)

I think your (edit) is an acceptable synthesis, although I might drop the tonnage addition to between .5 - 2 tons.

(I assume that would include some individual help for mechs like the poor LCT-1M at stock 1 ton of amor...)

Edited by Livewyr, 30 April 2014 - 05:51 AM.