180 replies to this topic

[MrM1971]

yes if they double the armor they need to double the ammo pur ton ratio to keep balance

and anyone who says wait till you play it to try i dont need to wait ive played mechwarrior games since they came out and battletech since it came out you raise armor you raise ammo or you end up with almost every player useing energy only weapons since they dont even require ammo and take less tonnage to use to start with.


the clasic TT rules had the ammo and armor ratio issue dealt with ( now if people feal they die to fast then learn to play better dont just rush in use tactics and play smart to live longer )

[Squigles]

Skoll Lokeson, on 28 June 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

But the 1D only has 1 SRM launcher, the SRM 4 is removed.

Some crazy person threw in an XL engine and added 1.5T of armor and an extra ton of SRM ammo?

Was just initially referring to the oddball ammo count being a fraction of a ton.

Edit: I'd not read too much into the 2T ammo count as being "doubled", as unless the 3A and dragon that were shown near the beginning as well, with no combat damage, had fired exactly half their ammo load, ammo isn't doubled.

Edited by Squigles, 28 June 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[Jaxwen]

Phasics, on 27 June 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

That information isn't useful unless you know how many AC20 rounds it takes to kill an atlas shooting its torso.

In fact without any decent numbers of rounds required to destroy X/mech you don't even know if doubling ammo is sufficient or overpowered.

If we know the specific armor value and the weapon damage profile we can do the basic math to know how many HITS it will take to evaluate the likelihood of inflicting enough damage to down an Atlas (or any other known MWO mech) with a specific weapon(s).

It would be idiotic to double the armor AND double the weapons damages. So common sense school of thought that increased armor would increase battle durations makes perfect sense.

Tactics aside, the math suggests that if:
Piloting a Catapult using a pair of LRM15s with standard damage profile
Targeting an Atlas with double the armor profile (with 19.5 tons for 614 points of armor)
Even with an unbelievably lucky pilot getting in 24 missile hits per 30 missile volley fired.
307/24 would have been 12.7 volleys to decimate the one mech (out of a possible 12 enemies on the battlefield)
614/24 would be 25.6 volleys to decimate the same single mech

Sure there are a lot of other factors but that doesn't change the OP's point that it stands to reason that ammo is a much bigger factor than it already was! Now factor in misses and fewer missiles finding the target and enemy mechs with AMS... it is a viable question for those who have a desire to use LRMs or any weapons that uses ammo.

[Blaze32]

for double armor is it adding a higher cap point value to the amount of points you can have
or..
is it doing that and doubling points per ton?

if it is the first i cant see it helping the light mechs...

[Phasics]

Jaxwen, on 28 June 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

If we know the specific armor value and the weapon damage profile we can do the basic math to know how many HITS it will take to evaluate the likelihood of inflicting enough damage to down an Atlas (or any other known MWO mech) with a specific weapon(s).

It would be idiotic to double the armor AND double the weapons damages. So common sense school of thought that increased armor would increase battle durations makes perfect sense.

Tactics aside, the math suggests that if:
Piloting a Catapult using a pair of LRM15s with standard damage profile
Targeting an Atlas with double the armor profile (with 19.5 tons for 614 points of armor)
Even with an unbelievably lucky pilot getting in 24 missile hits per 30 missile volley fired.
307/24 would have been 12.7 volleys to decimate the one mech (out of a possible 12 enemies on the battlefield)
614/24 would be 25.6 volleys to decimate the same single mech

Sure there are a lot of other factors but that doesn't change the OP's point that it stands to reason that ammo is a much bigger factor than it already was! Now factor in misses and fewer missiles finding the target and enemy mechs with AMS... it is a viable question for those who have a desire to use LRMs or any weapons that uses ammo.

No it doesn't stand to any reason, because you have no idea if for the last 6 month of closed testing mechs have been finishing battles with plenty of ammo left over and that increasing armor acutal has little impact on the ammo because players were already in excess.

[Blaze32]

i think i would be ok if it had double armor and double ammo because it would make the game last longer. if it is doubling armor only i can see this hit a problem with all mechs. I think the devs will make the right choice though...

[Squigles]

Jaxwen, on 28 June 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

Tactics aside, the math suggests that if:
Piloting a Catapult using a pair of LRM15s with standard damage profile
Targeting an Atlas with double the armor profile (with 19.5 tons for 614 points of armor)
Even with an unbelievably lucky pilot getting in 24 missile hits per 30 missile volley fired.
307/24 would have been 12.7 volleys to decimate the one mech (out of a possible 12 enemies on the battlefield)
614/24 would be 25.6 volleys to decimate the same single mech

Sure there are a lot of other factors but that doesn't change the OP's point that it stands to reason that ammo is a much bigger factor than it already was! Now factor in misses and fewer missiles finding the target and enemy mechs with AMS... it is a viable question for those who have a desire to use LRMs or any weapons that uses ammo.

When we say ammo weapons are being nerfed by this, what do we have to compare it to? The easiest comparison we can come up with is TT. So let's do a comparison.

TT: LRM's don't magically home in on the target, they're fired just like almost every other weapon in the game and need to roll a certain number to hit. Standard IS pilots have a gunnery score of 4. So let's go ahead and create a scenario.

Scenario: LRM boat vs a slow assault mech. Let's take a catapult-C1 vs an Atlas. Average number of missile hits per LRM 15 rack that hits is 9. We'll give ourselves a range modifier of +2 for medium range (TT IS LRM has only 1 hex where it gets a +0 range modifier, 7 hexes), we'll give ourselves a movement mod of +1 for backpeddling, and a +2 movement mod for the atlas running at us. So you're looking at needing 9's to hit.

9's to hit work out to about a 28% hit rate. So, looking at the C1, we have a pair of LRM 15's that do an average of 9 damage each when they hit, and hit about 28% of the time. This gives us an average per salvo damage of 5.04. That's an average of 20.16 damage delivered to target per ton of LRM ammo.

If we go ahead and give ourselves a favorable situation with a +0 movement mod for the missile boat, the hit rates go up to about 41%, giving us an average damage per ton of 29.52 per ton of LRM ammo.

What this means is, if you get at least 60 points of damage per ton from MWO LRM ammo, you are exceeding the optimistic damage profile of damage per ton of LRM's from TT even with the doubled armor. Watching the video's, achieving a 50% LRM hit rate with a missile lock on an atlas isn't going to be a stretch, in short, when you compare ammo using weapons to our TT comparison, there is no need for doubled ammo, because they already outperform their TT companions by 100% or better.

Yes these numbers also apply to pretty much every other ammo using weapon in TT, unless you start using utterly ludicrous comparisons like 2 mechs standing completely still at point blank range.

[Phasics]

Has anyone even considered that maybe ballistic weapons needed a nerf and doubling armor killed two birds with one stone by requiring ballistic weapon mech to mount more tons of ammo ?

[Jaxwen]

Reoh, on 27 June 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

I think the double armor was a good idea, from the footage we've seen the fights feel right to me. Beta is for testing various systems and that doesn't make it gauranteed at launch. That's just my opinion though, so going over some of the points about why that's true.

* TT has random hit chance & location. In MWO we'll hit a lot more and can reliably target locations. Perhaps some increase to ammo is warranted but double would be excessive because of how a player can use it more efficiently.

* All weapons have to bust through the extra armor, but the accuracy quotient is the balance to this. Ballistics use their ammo more effectively, energy weapons generate more heat for the same kills. Both are impacted by this.

* Missile weapons still spread and cannot be targeted like others, this is a good point. Double their TT damage to Mechs (explosions should not do increased damage) and we're even again.

Why do you think that in MWO we will hit more than in TT?

TT is based off a Gunnery rating "base" that is adjusted by a number of factors. I hit often in TT because of my tactics. Having a good Gunnery rating makes it all the more likely.

MWO is based off a Players "IRL skill" of coordination & accuracy, also adjusted by a number of factors. A good player will use tactics to increase their chance of hitting but I fail to see how there is a major difference in the likelihood of getting a hit unless it is a players eye/hand coordination that is the differing factor. Which won't make enough difference if their teamwork and individual tactics are poor.

[Lycan]

John Hartson, on 27 June 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

The Hunchback in the video has 320 points of armor. A Hunchback has only 160 points of armor in the Table Top game.

For one ton of AC/20 Ammo the Hunchback got 5 rounds in the video. It is the same amount in the Table Top game.

So you're supposed shoot off the double amount of armor with the standard amount of ammo.

Same problem for a Catapult. You can no longer do your job as a support mech after firing 8 volleys with your LRMs. You don't know if your missiles hit anything and if they hit someone you have to punch through double armor.

Tell me what you think! Less Armor? More Ammo? No changes?

The armor and IS was increased to compensate of the fact that PGI/MWO is not using a comparable "to-hit" roll like is used in TT.

Because they are basing, for the most part, the accuracy the mech's weapon systems on the hand/eye coordination of the person behind the mouse/keyboard. Because of this, they had to do something to give the mechs more staying power as the armor/is values that from the TT were based of the randomness of incoming weapon fire and wasn't built/designed to with stand concentrate fire from multiple weapons at once.

Therefore, I think leaving things the way the are now at double armor/IS and TT ammo/per ton is the way to go. If, during game play it seems as though the armor is too thick and the ammo based weapons don't have the necessary staying power to deal with it, it can be revisited.

[Phasics]

Alas it bares mentioning again because people are still bringing TT rules in as grounding for their arguments

Bryan Ekman said:

I'm most definitely not interested in engaging in a war over BT vs MW, or people's personal interpretation of the TT rules. As it stands several comments on this page alone make me wonder if they have even played the TT game, as almost everything is simulated using random dice: missile, hit locations, etc etc.

Since this thread is degrading into a pointless carousel of personal opinions that have no bearing on the game itself, I'm electing to use my moderation abilities and locking this thread.

I have made a statement as to how MWO is being developed. You can like it or not, disagree or agree. That is absolutely your right. Arguing endlessly over it with no possible positive outcome is pointless.

[Jaxwen]

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Has anyone even considered that maybe ballistic weapons needed a nerf and doubling armor killed two birds with one stone by requiring ballistic weapon mech to mount more tons of ammo ?

That's shortsighted my friend. If ballistics needed scaled back because they were too effective, you tweak the ballistics values.

It's the same as having a car problem with the engine not running right because of the air and fuel filters needing to be replaced. So instead of addressing the problem, it is decided to upgrade the exhaust to get the car to perform right.

I see this scenario play out in video games all the time. Way too often. Players cry for a change because ABC is too effective against XYZ in the opinion of School of Thought One. Then the balancing attempts go back and forth with School of Thought Two and more taking turns complaining. Well if you catch a legit concern earlier enough, you can swap out the simple filters (have good code to begin with) so you don't have some fool deciding the whole exhaust system needs replaced because the engine is too complex to correct the real problem later down the road.

Maybe I can't explain it but I sure do understand it and believe other viewers of this threat do to.

Edited by Jaxwen, 28 June 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[Squigles]

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Alas it bares mentioning again because people are still bringing TT rules in as grounding for their arguments

We have only 1 thing to compare against, TT, and since the entire basis for this thread is based around TT (e.g. TT ammo counts per ton vs armor count per ton), basing arguments in this highly theoretical thread on TT rules is just common sense. I suppose we could just flail our arms about and scream and rail about our interpretations of our own inner thoughts on cake mix if you'd like.

[Phasics]

Jaxwen, on 28 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

That's shortsighted my friend. If ballistics needed scaled back because they were too effective, you tweak the ballistics values.

It's the same as having a car problem with the engine not running right because of the air and fuel filters needing to be replaced. So instead of addressing the problem, it is decided to upgrade the exhaust to get the car to perform right.

I see this scenario play out in video games all the time. Way too often. Players cry for a change because ABC is too effective against XYZ in the opinion of School of Thought One. Then the balancing attempts go back and forth with School of Thought Two and more taking turns complaining. Well if you catch a legit concern earlier enough, you can swap out the simple filters (have good code to begin with) so you don't have some fool deciding the whole exhaust system needs replaced because the engine is too complex to correct the real problem later down the road.

Maybe I can't explain it but I sure do understand it and believe other viewers of this threat do to.

You know your post would make sense if the game had been released, it hasn't so it doesn't.

Beta's are the one time you can and should make the radical changes without getting crucified by the player base.

Trying big changes now is how you find the best way of doing things for a final release. It kills me how some of you are talking like we already have a 1.0v release and if anything is changed other things have to change as well to keep thing balanced it really beggars belief

Sweeping changes are what beta are for

But you know what its cool, you guys have no influence on the beta so I'm not worried

[BduSlammer]

guys remmber these battle last longer tha table top , if they kept same armor as it these mechs would be going down in 1 min think of it that is 6 turns of fighting

[Phasics]

Squigles, on 28 June 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

We have only 1 thing to compare against, TT, and since the entire basis for this thread is based around TT (e.g. TT ammo counts per ton vs armor count per ton), basing arguments in this highly theoretical thread on TT rules is just common sense. I suppose we could just flail our arms about and scream and rail about our interpretations of our own inner thoughts on cake mix if you'd like.

And yet the devs have already clearly stated they're not interested in such comparisons and interpretations to TT and since I assume some of you hope the devs take your ideas on board your arguing in a way they said they're not going to listen to.

[BFalcon]

I do find it hard to believe that the LRMs all hit the same location - if that is true, then it's fine. If not, and they impact over an area, then to keep the mech viable, they'll need an increase in ammo to keep them in line. Likewise with the ACs.

It does kinda depend on the convergeance feature we were told about - if that spreads out the damage as the TT rules did, then surely they need to look again at the double-ammo/double armour issue.

I like the way they're increasing the combat time, but longer combat times would surely tend to drift towards favouring the non-ammo mechs and the larger mechs?

As a probable Light mechwarrior, I'm glad I won't be 1-shotted, but taking out that Atlas' rear armour is going to be a PAIN if it's doubled up and weapons are doing the same.

Still - sounds fun, as long as you avoid the ammo-using weapons - something I have a tendancy to do anyhow (we used campaign rules and ammo-free mechs, although a pain for heat, made life easier all-round on the logistics - it meant that supplies only needed to be spares, armour plate and foodstuffs - all nicely non-explosive cargos). Gauss rifles are nice though - at least in TT - they can rip open a mech easily - I hope they'll be just as nasty in MWO, since they're so ammo-crippled.

As I said before, I think - we'll have to wait and see - we founders trusted the dev team once when we bought the founder packs, let's trust them again to get it right, until we see for ourselves, eh?

[BFalcon]

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

And yet the devs have already clearly stated they're not interested in such comparisons and interpretations to TT and since I assume some of you hope the devs take your ideas on board your arguing in a way they said they're not going to listen to.

Not me - just debating - hopefully they've already looked at the various weapons that need ammo and how spread that damage is over locations and decided whether they still hold their own or if they need help to keep them viable. If that's done (or under way) then we can relax.

As I said above, we'll just need to trust and wait.

[Voss Korgan]

I could be wrong, but don't all the known variants have at least one decent energy weapon? Seems like a ballistic only mech will not be viable I these rules stand. Can't say I am pleased with this design choice.

[Phasics]

Voss Korgan, on 28 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I could be wrong, but don't all the known variants have at least one decent energy weapon? Seems like a ballistic only mech will not be viable I these rules stand. Can't say I am pleased with this design choice.

Strip off the lasers and add more ammo problem solved