180 replies to this topic

[TIRANO QUATTRO]

C'mon guys... stop the speculations... this is still beta, devs are trying things so they can balance the game... double ammo, double armor, it's not a fact yet!!

[Lonestar1771]

Zarkus, on 27 June 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Those looking at the leaked BETA footage and showing concern that ammo will be critically short for standard allotments are right to do so.

Emphasis mine

[Zarkus]

Lonestar1771, on 27 June 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Zarkus, on 27 June 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

Those looking at the leaked BETA footage and showing concern that ammo will be critically short for standard allotments are right to do so.

Emphasis mine

Zarkus, on 27 June 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

This is one of those math problems that is figured out on the back of an envelope. Allowing it to get as far as making code changes is a waste of development time.

Emphasis mine.

Edited by Zarkus, 27 June 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[Zynk]

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

I started this topic not only because I saw the leaked beta footage. It is something that already came to my mind when i saw the Mechlab-Video which was released by PGI.

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?

One word you need to learn--- BETA ---

Dev's need to balance playability and enjoyment for us, getting one shotted everytime you get in a battle would suck.

Yes they are using TT but it has to be adjusted for the MMO environment as turn base will not work, or would you want to wait on the a**hat who was afk for the battle.

So after all the beta adjustments we could have 150-200% more armor/10-50% more ammo per ton or you may need to drop a wepon for an extra ton of ammo.

[Gorith]

For those saying they doubled armor so should up damage to compensate... UMM why when they can just lower the armor per ton if they find double armor to be to much?

As for shots per ammo my first thought is that from the way they look to work LRMs (possibly SRMs but havent seen those in action) should likely have their ammo increased as they still seem to hit pretty randomly from the dev vids atleast. The other types of ammo I can seewhy they might need more but will trust the devs to do their job and wait till i actually see it all action for myself

Edited by Gorith, 27 June 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[Lonestar1771]

Zarkus, on 27 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Emphasis mine.

So testing things to see what works and what doesn't is a waste of time? Lots of things look good on paper but don't pan out well in execution. Leonardo Da' Vinci could atest to that. Do you think the Wright Bros. got it right the first time?

Jumping to conclusions is exactly the wrong way to do anything..

Edited by Lonestar1771, 27 June 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Sensor Malfunction]

Here's my issue... Ammo isn't power, it's stamina. Having more or less ammo for a weapon does not affect its damage per second, it just means you can fire that weapon for longer periods of time. The real issue here is whether ammunition based weapons are more POWERFUL than energy based weapons, and if so, by how much. If ammo based weapons are so powerful that you can end a fight before your opponent can do any real damage to you with their lasers, then the extreme ammo limitation is justified. But if ammo based weapons are only, say, 20% more powerful on paper, then that doesn't really justify the fact that they are harder to aim, harder to mount, and limited in fight time. Many people are also pointing out that this will have a HUGE impact on "imprecise" weapons like LRMs.... I agree. I saw this was going to be a problem with the release of the Catapult gameplay video. Eight volleys with LRMs, in this game, looks to mean almost nothing damage-wise.


Related, I'd like to point out that energy weapons have stamina too in the form of heat. But: a basic problem that has plagued Battletech since forever is the fact that mechs have have built in energy stamina in the form of free heat sinks. Every single mech basically gets to carry 2 MLAS or a LLAS or whatever without having to pay the heat sink cost because of the internal engine sinks. Things get even more stupid with the introduction of double heat sinks. Ammo based weapons do not have that advantage.

[Jensen]

Sierra19, on 27 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Like was stated earlier, in the TT game things like AC's spread their damage all over the mech, in this game, you can aim, so that 20 points from the AC20 are going to go to the same spot. 20 points to the same spot ANYWHERE on ANY mech will either severely damage it, cripple it, or destroy it, so giving extra armor is a way to balance that all out. And for those wanting to kit out their mechs with just lasers, you are going to have hardpoint and weight restrictions to deal with, plus that niggling issue of heat management.

Whoever stated this never played TT. AC 20s do 20 points to one location. Unless its your head or a lucky floating crit, no mech gets one shotted with an AC20. The game has been around for 30 years. All of the balancing has been worked out. You CAN aim in TT, it just makes it harder to hit. You CAN add dispersion to a video game (WOT does it) So the point of aim problem isn't one if you add dispersion. Really, something is being fixed that was never broken.

[Voyager I]

Jensen, on 27 June 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Whoever stated this never played TT. AC 20s do 20 points to one location. Unless its your head or a lucky floating crit, no mech gets one shotted with an AC20. The game has been around for 30 years. All of the balancing has been worked out. You CAN aim in TT, it just makes it harder to hit. You CAN add dispersion to a video game (WOT does it) So the point of aim problem isn't one if you add dispersion. Really, something is being fixed that was never broken.

Pretty sure most PC players will rebel if they add artificial dispersion to all our shots.

A very large portion of this games is FPS Action. In FPS games, your bullets go where you tell them to (spray patterns on automatic weapons notwithstanding), or the skill curve goes out the window while your playerbase walks out the door.


And frankly, they do need to tweak the game to translate it from tabletop to computer. Our weapons don't and shouldn't randomly scatter. That means we'll be looking at damage distributed in a pattern nothing like what dice rolls in the tabletop would give you, and it means the game doesn't play exactly the same.

[AlanEsh]

Rixx, on 27 June 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

There are 2 solutions.
A. double the ammo per ton. This would allow us to do the same amount of damage, but it would also have other affects. It would allow us to stay in the battle longer. This would change the game significantly. Less possibility of running out of ammo, less need to stock extra tons of ammo (affects tonnage and explosive threats). I'd prefer B.
B. double the damage from untargetable weaponry. This would mean we have exactly the same ammo as the TT game which wouldn't change the tactical dynamics at all. The double damage would compensate for the increased armor.

No, B is not a good option. You can too easily take a head off, and they are obviously trying to minimize instadeath by doubling armor (see answer below).
Just keep weapon values close to original/stock, double the ammo so people can still shoot their ammo weapons during these dev-stated extended matches, and all is swell.

Quote

Where was this said? Do you have a link to where a dev said they were doubling armor for a specific reason?

When the very first official release of MechLab footage hit the site people noticed the 2x armor. They asked, the devs responded. I'm not going to go find the quote, but it was "to extend the game so you don't die in one salvo 45 seconds into a match" to paraphrase.

[Voss Korgan]

Perfect solution is double ammo and half ammo explosion damage.

[AlanEsh]

Voss Korgan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Perfect solution is double ammo and half ammo explosion damage.

Unless they doubled internal structure too

[Cid]

Voss Korgan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Perfect solution is double ammo and half ammo explosion damage.

this is a good start

[LesIzmore]

I belive they wanted no one shot kills ,so they doubled the armor values to make the missions last longer and make ALL the Mechs viable in combat.

[Cid]

...and while doing that forgot to double ammo

[Rixx]

Angelicon, on 27 June 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

No, B is not a good option. You can too easily take a head off, and they are obviously trying to minimize instadeath by doubling armor (see answer below).
Just keep weapon values close to original/stock, double the ammo so people can still shoot their ammo weapons during these dev-stated extended matches, and all is swell.


When the very first official release of MechLab footage hit the site people noticed the 2x armor. They asked, the devs responded. I'm not going to go find the quote, but it was "to extend the game so you don't die in one salvo 45 seconds into a match" to paraphrase.

If you double the armor of the head, or any other slot, and then double the damage of an LRM, you maintain the balance of the TT game since you can't target the LRM to hit a certain area of the mech. 1 random LRM hitting the head would be no more deadly than that happening in the TT game. If they are really worried about head shots, they could just throw a default amount of bonus armor to the head and call it good.

Doubling all the armor on the mech just to compensate for the head makes no sense, and reduces the effects of all weapons.

Doubling LRM ammo would give support mechs the ability to just stay back forever and rain down missles. Thats not how things play out in the TT game at all. They have limited shots and have to use them wisely. Doubling LRM damage would keep the LRMs effective, yet not add the tactical advantage of longevity.

I'm still on the fence for other ammo based weapons...ACs. Doubling their damage would defeat the purpose of the increased armor, and to compensate you'd have to increase the damage of energy weapons, and then everything is a wash anyways. Pointless.
The increase in armor effectively deals with the increased accuracy capable in a FPS. There was no aiming in the TT BT (short of house rules or special equipment). Each AC20 shot could go to a different location. Now that you can control where they go, each round is more effective than in the TT game. Even with double the armor, it should take less shots to down a mech in MWO than in the TT game. Is each round worth twice as much? Eh. Maybe an ammo per ton upgrade is needed to make them viable. Double the ammo seems severe too though. In a 12v12 match the hunchback could get a shot off on almost every enemy mech. Thats a little crazy don't you think?

I think it's going to be a balancing issue that won't be solved right out of the gate. If everyone takes laser boats, then they'll tweak damage and ammo accordingly unitl people start to balance the loadouts.

[BFalcon]

I'd suggest shelving this discussion until the Open Beta, when we'll all know what we're talking about.

If, and I'll emphasise that, *IF* the armour and Internals are doubled, then I'd hope that they WOULD increase the ammo loads too - the ammo-using mechs DO need to be able to stand up to the laser-boats though. Doubling may be excessive, but you'll not always be able to hit the same locations all the time, so purely doubling might be too much.

As I said, let's just wait and see.

[ThunderHart]

Wait and see

[Phasics]

514yer, on 27 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

You really dont, you know the damage of the weapon (based on TT) how much ammo it has (based on TT) and it wouldnt be a gigantic leap to figure out that ammo based weapon systems will be less viable than energy weapons given the fact that theyll run out of ammo in some situations before doing significant damage

Ah you really do
Show me where the devs have said they are keeping strictly to the TT damage tables.

Maybe AC20's are actually doing 23.4dmg , maybe AC10s are doing 12.9dmg , this is not a pure recreation of the TT game and assuming it is would be a mistake.

None of you have any idea if the current damage tables look anything like the TT nor can any of you know how the hit detection system will function when a weapon strikes two armor facings how damage is split based on coverage. None of you know what rates of damage fall off are like either.

So they doubled armor, doesn't mean they haven't adjusted , ROF's, damage per shot and other factors when they did that.

[Grimarch]

For this is simple but there is a point to the post. Dev guys dont want to replicate the TT game where a Hunchback hits a locust or commando and its gone in one shot maybe two so they doubled the armour. Thats fine and makes sense, bit like the other game we try not to mention, ITS A GAME AND NOT REAL!

However if this is the case it puts even more onus on mechs to use laser weapons which then favours mechs with those hard points. If they do something to counter this by letter mechs add ammo to weapons without taking up slots but still adding weight thats an option, you down grade your engine and beef up your ammo, typical support role?

G