32 replies to this topic

[Cart]

Livewyr, on 30 April 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

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...)

I corcted it to start with 1t because of the Locust...some of the stock variants are so badly armoured...if you could only add 0,5t of armour, they would be really scrap...even for a 20t Mech...

[Livewyr]

Cart, on 30 April 2014 - 07:37 AM, said:

I corcted it to start with 1t because of the Locust...some of the stock variants are so badly armoured...if you could only add 0,5t of armour, they would be really scrap...even for a 20t Mech...

I'm thinking they would need individual help..

but at 2.5t for assaults, that wouldn't change it much from how they are now..

[Livewyr]

Alternatively:

New proposal:

+20% of stock armor rounded to nearest .5 ton
To accentuate the armor profile difference between a VTR and an AWS, or a RVN-3L and Jenner F, without creating extraneous useless amounts of armor (inbetween .5 tons)

Also, individual help for light mechs that start with <100 pts of armor- setting the minimum armor availability at 4 tons total.

[Koniving]

Durant Carlyle, on 28 April 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

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.

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

Thanks. I did not know see the ferro (been systematically opening Smurfy back to back for each one's stats)! And that might explain something. Though this does kinda hurt the K a bit more. Now, what I get from rounding is actually 126 instead of 128 to get 3.5 tons (36 is 1 ton of ferro).

Though what this tells me is that the K should have gotten the second missile hardpoint instead of the D. Neither of them actually have second missile hardpoints in source anyway. I guess the old solution I had before adding in that stock armor had to be divisible into either "1" or "0.5" intervals of tonnage will have to go into effect anyway.

Far as the rear-facing launcher, turns out on megamek I was using a Jenner II-C and flipping my arms or probably just really hyped up on the Quickdraws. One thing I noticed is that a lot of the 'similar' versions of variants tend to have rear-facing weapons when placed in MWO when they would seemingly have absolutely no reason to exist in tabletop (the reasoning turning out to be said rear facing weapons).

As for the engine adjustments, I've been thinking of that for a while now. At the moment what I have is stock + 6 ratings, but I'm likely to decrease that. A rating being a 5 point increase. So 140 to 145 is 1 rating increase. This generally works. Though it needs some adjustments; some mechs are pretty high and then some only achieve their speeds because of XL engines.

Livewyr, on 29 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

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%)

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

Now, remember this: The distance between a Locust's armor and an Atlas's armor is exactly 480 points of armor.
At stock, 480 points difference.
At 3 tons more (which is + 96 std or 108 ferro or 192 hardened), 480.
At 2 tons more, 480.
At 1 ton more, 480.
At 0.5 tons more, 480.
At 100 tons more, 480.
At 500,759 tons more armor, 480 points difference.

But with a random percentage, that 30 years of proverbial balancing gets lost, because it's 480 stock, or a difference of 600+ with 20 to 30% increases. You're simply alienating lighter armored mechs instead of preserving something wholesome from Battletech.

With a specific number, whether you're simply playing a stock game or a maxed armor game, you have EQUAL chances without alienating anyone.

Another thing to remember is that slapping on armor requires reducing firepower or speed. To a light, that is crippling. So a light could go for more armor, and wind up going 32.4 kph. Or it could actually use an XL engine, somewhat near max armor, and maybe have 1 medium laser. Or whatever combination it may go with.

But an assault mech with BOATLOADS of armor, shrugs the whole thing off, carries his AC/20, standard engine, and 3 SRM-6s with two large lasers and craploads more armor than ever intended by HARDENED ARMOR let alone regular armor, and suddenly we have absolutely no reason to run anything else. He'd slap it on with maybe a 4 kph loss in speed; no big deal.

Now, what is more fair?
An even slide from Battletech stock to a new max that preserves that perfect armor ratio whether everyone is stock, everyone is max standard, max ferro, or max hardened?
Or something that basically says buff the heavy armors and screw the rest of your mechs and makes everyone want refunds?

[Durant Carlyle]

Koniving, on 01 May 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

(36 is 1 ton of ferro).

Only if you round up.

One ton of standard armor is 32 points.
I.S. Ferro-Fibrous armor adds 12% to that.
Jenner-K has 3.5 tons of I.S. FF.

32 x 1.12 = 35.84
3.5 x 35.84 = 125.44, rounded down to 125 points

TT values:
16 x 1.12 = 17.92
3.5 x 17.92 = 62.72, rounded down to 62

It's supposed to have 124 points in MW:O (2 x 62), but due to the calculation of double armor and rounding, it gets 125 points.

[Shlkt]

I this this change would push even more 'Mechs into the completely unviable category. The stock armor profiles from TT are designed for random hit locations and inaccurate weapons. They just don't translate well into an FPS.

The CDA-2A, which is already a pretty terrible 'Mech, comes stock with only 4 tons of armor; the same as a Locust!
The JM6-S, a heavy mech, comes stock with just 6 tons of armor. Only 2 tons more than a Locust.
There are lots of other extreme examples.

These 'Mechs with low stock armor profiles would immediately become unusable (assuming they were usable to begin with). TTK is short enough as it is; we don't need to nerf it further.

[Koniving]

Durant Carlyle, on 01 May 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

Only if you round up.

You can only apply even numbers and as mentioned by both of us percentages create problems, which is why I rounded up. What is great is that when you round the armor values, you can make 6.5 tons perfectly even whether standard or Ferro as 32 and 36.

Instead of some weird, off the wall and unallocatable extra number or partial ton, you'll have a perfect increment.

For example, take Huginn's current armor. It comes out to something like 6.444444 which isn't applicable in Battletech's tonnage of 0.5 or 1.0 intervals. Which makes it unable to make a perfect transition. But if it's 6.5, then you get a decimal armor value. It just causes problems.

But if you raise that 232 to 234, and then divide by 36, then you get 6.5 tons which is identical to the Raven 2x. Do this with a lot of armor values and you'll find them very similar to the non-ferro variants in armor tonnage which is why I use the 36 as opposed to "12%" more.

We already mentioned percentages cause issues.

For Shlkt's mention, some things can be done for certain situations.
However, with the engine change as well, the Cicada becomes the second fastest mech in the game; faster than the Flea (unless Flea uses MASC and breaks its legs) and almost as fast as the Locust.

You also have the structure values, untouched.
A Locust has 69+6 structure (the +6 is the 6 points added to the cockpit of every single mech to avoid one-shot headshots).
The Cicada with equal armor has 137+6 structure.
A Locust therefore has 203 total health.
A Cicada 2A has 271 total health.
That's at pure stock.
Add 3 tons to them and it's not bad at all.

Yes, the Jager S has that, but that is both lore and simple to resolve. It's long range fire support; not front line material. In exchange it has some of the coolest (thermally) and most devastating firepower potential in the entire game.

Also, I've used the Jager 4 UAC/5 build which requires 192 armor, and come out with 1,000+ damage, 6+ kill matches just fine. It's all in how you play.

The idea, however, is that mechs that by lore have large amounts of armor like the Thunderbolt and the Dragon and the Awesome...can actually do what they are described to do. Shadowhawk? Described as a forward RECON scout, spotter, and long range fire support.
MWO uses it as a brawler, while the designated 55 ton brawlers can't be used as brawlers because they can't pack the Shadowhawk's instant-kill firepower.

One universal thing is that the mechs with the worst weapon possibilities are usually the ones with the best armor. o.O; The ones with the greatest advantages be them ECM, speed, etc., tend to be the ones with the worst armor. And then there are stated 'jacks in the middle' as well.

This allows mechs both flavor and caters to styles of gameplay instead of one universal meta.

[Livewyr]

Koniving, on 01 May 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

Thanks. I did not know see the ferro (been systematically opening Smurfy back to back for each one's stats)! And that might explain something. Though this does kinda hurt the K a bit more. Now, what I get from rounding is actually 126 instead of 128 to get 3.5 tons (36 is 1 ton of ferro).

Though what this tells me is that the K should have gotten the second missile hardpoint instead of the D. Neither of them actually have second missile hardpoints in source anyway. I guess the old solution I had before adding in that stock armor had to be divisible into either "1" or "0.5" intervals of tonnage will have to go into effect anyway.

Far as the rear-facing launcher, turns out on megamek I was using a Jenner II-C and flipping my arms or probably just really hyped up on the Quickdraws. One thing I noticed is that a lot of the 'similar' versions of variants tend to have rear-facing weapons when placed in MWO when they would seemingly have absolutely no reason to exist in tabletop (the reasoning turning out to be said rear facing weapons).

As for the engine adjustments, I've been thinking of that for a while now. At the moment what I have is stock + 6 ratings, but I'm likely to decrease that. A rating being a 5 point increase. So 140 to 145 is 1 rating increase. This generally works. Though it needs some adjustments; some mechs are pretty high and then some only achieve their speeds because of XL engines.


Now, remember this: The distance between a Locust's armor and an Atlas's armor is exactly 480 points of armor.
At stock, 480 points difference.
At 3 tons more (which is + 96 std or 108 ferro or 192 hardened), 480.
At 2 tons more, 480.
At 1 ton more, 480.
At 0.5 tons more, 480.
At 100 tons more, 480.
At 500,759 tons more armor, 480 points difference.

But with a random percentage, that 30 years of proverbial balancing gets lost, because it's 480 stock, or a difference of 600+ with 20 to 30% increases. You're simply alienating lighter armored mechs instead of preserving something wholesome from Battletech.

With a specific number, whether you're simply playing a stock game or a maxed armor game, you have EQUAL chances without alienating anyone.

Another thing to remember is that slapping on armor requires reducing firepower or speed. To a light, that is crippling. So a light could go for more armor, and wind up going 32.4 kph. Or it could actually use an XL engine, somewhat near max armor, and maybe have 1 medium laser. Or whatever combination it may go with.

But an assault mech with BOATLOADS of armor, shrugs the whole thing off, carries his AC/20, standard engine, and 3 SRM-6s with two large lasers and craploads more armor than ever intended by HARDENED ARMOR let alone regular armor, and suddenly we have absolutely no reason to run anything else. He'd slap it on with maybe a 4 kph loss in speed; no big deal.

Now, what is more fair?
An even slide from Battletech stock to a new max that preserves that perfect armor ratio whether everyone is stock, everyone is max standard, max ferro, or max hardened?
Or something that basically says buff the heavy armors and screw the rest of your mechs and makes everyone want refunds?

That is correct.. a perfect continuation of stock separation..now lets see if the current engine calculation fits that "blanket balance" that works so well.

CTF-3D Stock Engine: XL280 Speed: 64.8
CTF-4X Stock Engine: ST210 Speed: 48.6
16.2kph Difference
CTF-3D Max Engine: XL340 Speed: 78.7
CTF-4X Max Engine: XL255 Speed: 59.0
19.7kph Difference

The CTF-3D has the same potential max armor, but 3.5kph better potential speed. (And the maneuverability that comes with that.)

VTR (any of them) Stock Engine XL320 Speed: 64.8kph
AWS (any but 9M) Stock Engine ST240 Speed: 48.6kph
16.2kph Difference
VTR(any of them) Max Engine XL385 Speed: 78kph
AWS (true engine) Max Engine XL280 Speed: 56.7kph
AWS (any but 9M) Max Engine XL300 Speed: 60.7kph
21.3kph Difference (Before individual AWS buff from 280-300)
17.3kph Difference (After individual AWS buff from 280-300)

Even after the break-away individual buff for the AWS engine upgrade range, the VTR has a higher maximum speed. They did not advance equally in speed and maneuverability.. why should armor?


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

And then there's the whole.. why should the smaller mechs get nearly double their stock armor, while the AWS and AS7 get a 15% boost?

Shlkt, on 01 May 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

I this this change would push even more 'Mechs into the completely unviable category. The stock armor profiles from TT are designed for random hit locations and inaccurate weapons. They just don't translate well into an FPS.

The CDA-2A, which is already a pretty terrible 'Mech, comes stock with only 4 tons of armor; the same as a Locust!
The JM6-S, a heavy mech, comes stock with just 6 tons of armor. Only 2 tons more than a Locust.
There are lots of other extreme examples.

These 'Mechs with low stock armor profiles would immediately become unusable (assuming they were usable to begin with). TTK is short enough as it is; we don't need to nerf it further.

I can't go a game without seeing at least 3 jagermechs in the match. (why not? It can mount 4 ballistics in the arms! With an XL!!!)
I see maybe 3 dragons on a good day.. or 3 Cat K2s accross 3-4 matches.. why?

Jagers can mount the same engines as K2s, can mount the same armor as K2s, and can pack more firepower than K2s..

Jagers paid for their good speed and awesome firepower with armor.. something they don't have to pay for in MWO.
K2s paid for decent armor and speed with Firepower..something that they cannot compete with the Jager on in MWO.
(Dragons paid even more fire power for their speed and armor.)

TL:DR

Firepower and Speed are restricted- relative to the stock mech.
Armor, for some reason, was not.

Edited by Livewyr, 01 May 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I like the idea of Armor Profiles, but my head is still swimming from trying to understand the various methods to introduce Armor Profiles to MWO.

The way I thought about this seems similar enough, I was thinking more about setting a limit at the max weight of armor that can be added to a mech, partly based on their existing descriptions and existing stock setups in MWO, (could even explore trade-offs with variants such as having ECM variants having 1.5 less tonnage for Armor when mounting that particular piece of equipment).

Here was my starting point for current MWO mechs:

Spoiler

And to restate, these numbers should be tweaked as necessary, as this was just where I started at, to try and explain the idea.

Here is how Armor points should look in half ton increments, according their doubled MWO values, without rounding on Ferro:

Spoiler

This way, similar to how engines have the two different formula constraints for Max engine rating, mechs could also have separate constraints that would create different armor profiles by chassis and could even be specific to each variant as necessary, while also creating a bit more value for Ferro in more cases.

So this way the existing armor limits would still apply, but now there would also be a max weight to the amount of armor that could be mounted on a chassis.

For example, if we could see a Mauler in MWO as a 90 tonner, it's weight class armor max is 558 like the Highlanders, but it's max armor weight could be set at 14 tons of armor, so a max of 448 Standard Armor or ~501 FF Armor.

Where a Highlander could be able to mount up to the 558 limit.

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 01 May 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[Livewyr]

I don't like the idea of reducing armor specific to ECM. I get where you're coming from, but I'd rather have ECM work the way it should and the mech be armored appropriately with everyone else.


Also, where did you get the base numbers from? (Before modifiers for ECM and weapons)

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Livewyr, on 02 May 2014 - 03:12 AM, said:

I don't like the idea of reducing armor specific to ECM. I get where you're coming from, but I'd rather have ECM work the way it should and the mech be armored appropriately with everyone else.

Yeah, you're right. I too would prefer to fix ECM first, and having a single max armor value set by chassis so that any variant would share that value.

Quote

Also, where did you get the base numbers from? (Before modifiers for ECM and weapons)

I went through the current available mechs by checking Smurphy against what I found from the BattleTech Encyclopedia and Sarna descriptions to get a ballpark figure for the potential max armor weights I posted earlier (meaning I entered the values into a spreadsheet to get the armor weights).

And I haven't had the time to go through all of the builds on the Encyclopedia, but it's a fine resource.

[Cart]

Livewyr, on 30 April 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

I'm thinking they would need individual help..

but at 2.5t for assaults, that wouldn't change it much from how they are now..

Wouldn't it?

Let me calculate some examples with:

• max-armour=stock-armor+2t

And let's say max-cap at Mech-tonnage / 5 in Ferro-Armour (Without a max-point-cap, ferro would have a big advantage)
80t/5=16t 16*35,84=466 (rounded)
That would mean a cap of 573points(16t ferro-armour) for an 80t mech. (If we'd stay on the old cap of 494, it would be a disadvantage for those mechs, who are well-armoured in stock)

• The Awesomes have 480points std-armour(except the 9M and PB), meaning 15t. After this example-model, it could (theoretical) add 2t, which would mean 17t, but I set the limit to 573, so he could go with 573points.
  
• The VTR-9B has 368points std-armour in stock, meaning 11,5t. After this model, he could add 2t. That brings it to 13,5t, meaning 432points of standard-armour.
  
• The VTR-9K has 400points std-armour in stock, meaning 12,5t. After this model, he could add 2t. That brings it to 14,5t, meaning 464points of standard-armour.
  
• The VTR-9S has 336 points std-armour in stock, meaning 10,5t. After this model, he could add 2t. That brings it to 12,5t, meaning 400points of standard-armour.

So even the best-armoured VTR has still 1,5t less than the AWS and the worst-armoured VTR has even 3,5t less than the AWS. I think that could make a difference...


The values are just examples...

Or the Jaeger/Catapult example:
They are both 65t, so after this model, the max-cap would be at 65t/5=13t 13*35,84=466 (rounded)

• The CPLT-A1 has 384 in stock, this are 12t. It could (theoretical) add 2t, but is capped at 466, so it can use the full 466 of an 65t mech.
  
• the CPLT-C1 and C4 have 320 in stock, makes 10t. It can add 2t and than go with 12t. (384points std-armour)
  
• The CPLT-K2 comes with 352 in stock, meaning 11t. It could at 2t an comes to 13t. (416t std-armour)
  
• The JM6-A has 256 in stock, meaning 8t. With additional 2t it comes to 10t. (320points in std-armour)
  
• The JM6-DD has 232 (ferro) in stock, meaning 6,5t. With additional 2t it comes to 8,5t. (272points in std-armour, 305 in ferro)
  
• The JM6-S has 192 in stock, meaning 6t. With additional 2t it comes to 8t. (256points in std-armour)

I think, that would make a difference...


And for those who think, that this difference is still not big enough:
You have to be very careful with changes like this...making the differences to big can easily result in a new meta, where the Jaeger would be not viable or things like that...

And to have some Lights in here:
35t/5=7t 7*35,84=251 (rounded)
RVN-3L: 161 (ferro) stock -> 4,5t 4,5t+2t=6,5t (=233points ferro)
JN7-F: 224 (std) stock -> 7t 7t+2t=9t -> capped at 251points

Edited by Cart, 03 May 2014 - 11:39 AM.

[Cart]

Well...I let Excel do some work for me...to try different values.

After all, keeping the current max-point caps and use "max armour-tonnage=stock armour tonnage +1t" should work quite well. (For light Mechs maybe +1.5t)

The main problems are the Heroes and Champions. Most of them have (almost) the full armour of their weight class.
F.e. the calculated values of the Jaegers:

• JM6-A: 9t (=288 point std or 323 points ferro)
  
• JM6-DD: 7,5t (=240 points std or 269 points ferro)
  
• JM6-S: 7t (=224 points std or 251 points ferro)
  
• Firebrand: 11,5t (=368 points std or 412 points ferro)

(looks similar for the Cicada, Victor or Commando)



You could imagine the p2w-discussion that would follow...
The solution for the Champions would be easy: Just set them to the values of their non-Champion stock variants. F.e.: The Champions Victor would be set to the Values of anVTR-9S, which are, following the formula above, 11,5t max armour (368 points std). It could maybe look like:
VTR-9S(C)
With the saved weight from the reduced armour, I could add a DHS, AMS and a JJ.
But a fair solution for those Heroes would be hard to find...

Edited by Cart, 04 May 2014 - 10:42 AM.