Edited by Procurator Derek, 19 June 2016 - 12:00 PM.
5
The Adder....got Bigger? Wtf?!@
Started by Mcgral18, Jun 17 2016 03:37 PM
103 replies to this topic
#103
-
-
- 2,831 posts
Member
Posted 19 June 2016 - 01:54 PM
Mcgral18, on 18 June 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:
No, judgement is pretty accurate
Larger robots = weaker robots, when guns stay the same
Guns aren't changing significantly for another 2 months, and more quirks aren't coming for another month
Everything points to things getting weaker, almost exclusively (Nova will be boss, though)
Something I address in my reply to the PM I received from someone -rolls eyes again- its not the size (at least in my opinion, and at the very least isnt the main reason) that is causing the massive gap in survivability, but the way armor/internals are inflated causing a much larger gap than vanilla values would. (Yes I understand that in BTech things are subjected to accuracy rolls and all that other stuff, I'm talking about pure number related to MWO as a videogame.)
So without further ado, the 'PM' i received:
Quote
"-ROLLS EYES-
You diarrhea mouthed idiots haven't even played with the rescale yet, so your judgement is already flawed."
Yup, something which relies to survive by being not hit gets bigger and therefore easier to hit.
In addition the enlargment the mechs moves up one notch in the movement archtype making them even less agile adding to the problem.
You know, Mr. Tier 3, that before you try acting tough on the net, you should use a thing called "common sense"
You diarrhea mouthed idiots haven't even played with the rescale yet, so your judgement is already flawed."
Yup, something which relies to survive by being not hit gets bigger and therefore easier to hit.
In addition the enlargment the mechs moves up one notch in the movement archtype making them even less agile adding to the problem.
You know, Mr. Tier 3, that before you try acting tough on the net, you should use a thing called "common sense"
and my response:
Quote
So you're telling me that youve played with the rescaled mechs then? No? Then my point stands.
Its the same general principal as numbers for weapons, mechs, etc. You can mess with them on a spreadsheet all you want until they look great but in an actual live play environment they could be horribly skewed and cause massive balance issues.
Lights having 'lag shields' due to their combination of speed and small frames isn't balance and with this rescale many became larger allowing them to look into balancing them correctly from my opinion. For example, a 35 ton humanoid mech such as the firestarter shouldn't be that much smaller than a 40 ton of the same basic humanoid design. The only outlier in this respect that I have to call out prior to playing with the rescale is the locust....it actually does seem extremely small.
Thinking to the future there is also the power draw (ghost heat 2.0) mechanic aimed at breaking up weapon firing. Combine that with the rescale and fewer weapons fired at one time, or fired more often in chain (i.e. 3srm4 being fire in chain instead of a single shot, or MLs being fired in groupings of 2 instead of 4) means a lower TTK in theory.
If you really want to get down to it, the durability issue of lighter mechs compared to heavier mechs is the inflated internals and armor values, not their size.
A Spider has 8 points CT armor front and 4 rear in with 20 points total at maximum if you go off BT values. Inflated to 16/8 respectively stock, this is further increased to a maximum of 40 point split between the two for MWO.
Now take an Atlas with 47/14 and a total max of 62 as BTech values, upped to 94/28 stock with a max of 124 points in MWO.
They both 'double' their armor yet the spider gains 20 points while the Atlas gains 62. In perspective an AC 2 would take 4 shots to pop stock armor on the CT of a spider and 24 on the Atlas. This is translated to 8 shots on the Spider but then a whopping 48 shots on the Atlas.
The inflation of these cause a MASSIVE rift in the durability between them and is the real reason we have the issue. The alternative would be to 'add armor' at a set rate on EVERY mech and not MULTIPLY it.
But hey, nobody on these forums ever wants to listen to actual balance discussions so I stopped trying a while back and now only speak actual balance with those who I know will participate in the conversation.
Also I'll be posting your PM and my reply in that thread, because for whatever reason you felt like attacking me in a PM about my post would benefit you in some way?
Its the same general principal as numbers for weapons, mechs, etc. You can mess with them on a spreadsheet all you want until they look great but in an actual live play environment they could be horribly skewed and cause massive balance issues.
Lights having 'lag shields' due to their combination of speed and small frames isn't balance and with this rescale many became larger allowing them to look into balancing them correctly from my opinion. For example, a 35 ton humanoid mech such as the firestarter shouldn't be that much smaller than a 40 ton of the same basic humanoid design. The only outlier in this respect that I have to call out prior to playing with the rescale is the locust....it actually does seem extremely small.
Thinking to the future there is also the power draw (ghost heat 2.0) mechanic aimed at breaking up weapon firing. Combine that with the rescale and fewer weapons fired at one time, or fired more often in chain (i.e. 3srm4 being fire in chain instead of a single shot, or MLs being fired in groupings of 2 instead of 4) means a lower TTK in theory.
If you really want to get down to it, the durability issue of lighter mechs compared to heavier mechs is the inflated internals and armor values, not their size.
A Spider has 8 points CT armor front and 4 rear in with 20 points total at maximum if you go off BT values. Inflated to 16/8 respectively stock, this is further increased to a maximum of 40 point split between the two for MWO.
Now take an Atlas with 47/14 and a total max of 62 as BTech values, upped to 94/28 stock with a max of 124 points in MWO.
They both 'double' their armor yet the spider gains 20 points while the Atlas gains 62. In perspective an AC 2 would take 4 shots to pop stock armor on the CT of a spider and 24 on the Atlas. This is translated to 8 shots on the Spider but then a whopping 48 shots on the Atlas.
The inflation of these cause a MASSIVE rift in the durability between them and is the real reason we have the issue. The alternative would be to 'add armor' at a set rate on EVERY mech and not MULTIPLY it.
But hey, nobody on these forums ever wants to listen to actual balance discussions so I stopped trying a while back and now only speak actual balance with those who I know will participate in the conversation.
Also I'll be posting your PM and my reply in that thread, because for whatever reason you felt like attacking me in a PM about my post would benefit you in some way?
Edited by MauttyKoray, 19 June 2016 - 01:56 PM.
#104
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 3,510 posts
Member
- LocationHouston, Tx
Posted 19 June 2016 - 04:52 PM
SpiralFace, on 19 June 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:
Town hall said they are aiming for August with a July PTS. No guarantees though as usually whenever you hit a technical problem like they did, you can expect it to get bumped back a bit.
By technical problems you mean being ....
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
