14 replies to this topic

[TheMysteriousGX]

So I got to thinking about the devs boosting armor values for mechs to make matches longer. Now, this makes sense to me, but I thought of an unintended side-effect. Namely, if Ballistic and Missile weapons have the same amount of ammo per ton as canon, but have to go through 50% more armor, they are going run out before inflicting enough damage.

Now, to fix this, we can't go and change the damage value on the weapon, as that would take us back to square one. So, I propose, if it hasn't been done already of course, boosting the number of shots a weapon gets per ton of ammo by roughly the same amount as the armor is boosted.

For example:

If a mech armor goes up by an average of 50%, you get about 50% for ammo per ton.
!00% bonus armor, 100% bonus ammo, etc.

This way, and AC/10 with one ton of ammo will do the same amount of damage to a mech percentage wise, but take longer to do it than the equivalent table top design.

Thoughts?

[Graphite]

Agree 100%.

Armour has already been doubled, apparently (see the mechlab video) so IMHO it's absolutely essential to also double ammo loads.

[ManDaisy]

I say nay to doubling ammo. Just because I'm hard core.

[Lycan]

This again?

Armor was doubled due to the accuracy inherent in FPS type games like this.

The standard Table Top armor values aren't designed to withstand that accuracy that you, the player, have against what the dice say should you have thus, double the armor values to compensate.

You don't need double the ammo capacity if you know, for a fact, that you can land both shots from that AC/20 in the exact same spot.

If they had doubled the armor values and left a RNG in place to simulate a die roll then sure, I can see going with Double Ammo. But then, if they had done that, they wouldn't have needed to double the armor in the first place.

[Primarc]

I both agree and disagree to this. It makes perfect sense by the numbers, but I like the added fear of what ammo is supposed to do... Run Out! At the moment, I take a lot of ammo for mechs that need it and it allows me to fire off volley after volley without looking at my ammo at all. If I don't, then my mech can be faster, better armoured, cool down better, etc. I only really run out when that part of my mech is laying on the ground in pieces. Accuracy is nice, but I never say, "Ok, gotta make these shots really count!" As the battles progress, ammo concerns might make mixed armament mechs more appealing. Who knows?

In upping the armour, it seems that the devs have done more than just increase the battle times. They have also raised the importance of accuracy, positioning and patience. There's also the thrill that maybe, just maybe, that last ac20 shot is your last hope... *ping* *reload*

[Graphite]

Lycan, on 18 July 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

This again?

Armor was doubled due to the accuracy inherent in FPS type games like this.

The standard Table Top armor values aren't designed to withstand that accuracy that you, the player, have against what the dice say should you have thus, double the armor values to compensate.

You don't need double the ammo capacity if you know, for a fact, that you can land both shots from that AC/20 in the exact same spot.

Accuracy is a good point, and something I hadn't considered. But I don't think it's nearly enough to make up the difference, and this ignores missiles which aren't player-aimed, so don't benefit from better accuracy.

Quote

If they had doubled the armor values and left a RNG in place to simulate a die roll then sure, I can see going with Double Ammo. But then, if they had done that, they wouldn't have needed to double the armor in the first place.

Think about is from this angle instead: if ammo per ton were doubled, is there a danger people would load fewer tons of ammo, and therefore make a total hash of MWO's "BT correctness"?

I really, really doubt that'd happen. In other words, there's be no downside to doubling ammo.

Doubling armour without doubling ammo means one huge, simple problem hanging overhead: everyone's just going to max their energy hardpoints, and avoid mech chassis that don't have enough.

Bad (much worse than any problem doubling ammo could possibly cause). Choose the lesser of two evils.

Edited by Graphite, 19 July 2012 - 12:00 AM.

[WardenWolf]

I would recommend a compromise. Yes, a good human player can land substantially higher numbers of hits than the dice in TT - but it won't always be perfect. Further, missiles (especially LRMs) are likely no more accurate than they were in TT - you can't 'aim' them beyond making sure you get a lock.

As such, I would advise the following - assuming a 100% boost (doubling) to armor:

- Ballistic weapons get a 50% boost to ammo per ton, rounded down (so 7 shots for an AC20, 12 for a Gauss, etc)
- Missile launchers get a 100% boost to ammo per ton (doubled, to match the armor)

Now what about energy weapons, though? They also have to deal with double-thickness armor... so the make them more manageable I would do the following:

Implement something like the coolant flush that was in MW3 and 4 (can't recall if it was in MW2). To dump heat fast you can flush out a portion of your coolant. Once you drop below half coolant, though, your normal heat dissipation rate starts to drop... and if you are entirely out of coolant, you are down to like 50% of your normal dissipation - or even less.

Additionally, this would have a downside in that you would need to replace any used coolant after the battle, as part of your repairs / reloading. You could avoid this by never flushing coolant, but if you did use that feature you would have to pay for it

[Rodney28021]

well it is nice to know that the armor is doubled, when are they going to announce this? At the game release. We'll have to wait and see what the game is like at release. As for increasing ammo or other stuff, i say no. Maybe they put in something that decreased accuracy too. I will laugh at those ammo boats while i burn their armor off in my energy weapon carrying mech.

[Graphite]

WardenWolf, on 19 July 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

Now what about energy weapons, though? They also have to deal with double-thickness armor... so the make them more manageable I would do the following:

No need to give them anything - getting through the armour faster isn't the goal (in fact the whole point of the extra armour is to slow things down), the goal is to make sure the double armour see people unnecessarily run out of ammo.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

As someone who loves ACs all my designs have PPCs as well or instead of as the canon ammo allowances have never worked well away from the TT. Even when I have increased ammo allowances I still have this nagging fear that it may not be enough. Time will tell of course. The other thing that doubling armour has done is to negate the AC20s advantage of being able to seriously damage, or even cripple, smaller mechs with one shot. Even a heavy had to be afraid of a Hunchback behind them. I know it makes games last longer, but it still concerns me.

[Graphite]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 July 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

As someone who loves ACs all my designs have PPCs as well or instead of as the canon ammo allowances have never worked well away from the TT. Even when I have increased ammo allowances I still have this nagging fear that it may not be enough. Time will tell of course. The other thing that doubling armour has done is to negate the AC20s advantage of being able to seriously damage, or even cripple, smaller mechs with one shot. Even a heavy had to be afraid of a Hunchback behind them. I know it makes games last longer, but it still concerns me.

I agree Nick.

Also, as well as altering play, this will alter mech design...I imagine it will lead to gun-heavy, armour-light mechs (relative to official designs).

[Lycan]

Graphite, on 18 July 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Accuracy is a good point, and something I hadn't considered. But I don't think it's nearly enough to make up the difference, and this ignores missiles which aren't player-aimed, so don't benefit from better accuracy.

And I think you're not thinking about just how accurate some people can be with a mouse/joystick. Think of all the MW games to date and how they pretty much turned into no brainer point and shoot games because the accuracy of the person behind the mouse allowed for the full damage potential of a weapons group to land on one, TT valued armor location.

As for missiles, they don't and that might cause a hiccup in things but we won't really know until we're actually playing the game.

Quote

Think about is from this angle instead: if ammo per ton were doubled, is there a danger people would load fewer tons of ammo, and therefore make a total hash of MWO's "BT correctness"?

I really, really doubt that'd happen. In other words, there's be no downside to doubling ammo.

Doubling armour without doubling ammo means one huge, simple problem hanging overhead: everyone's just going to max their energy hardpoints, and avoid mech chassis that don't have enough.

Bad (much worse than any problem doubling ammo could possibly cause). Choose the lesser of two evils.

No, if ammo per ton was increased, you wouldn't have people loading fewer tons of ammo because there would be no need to. Why load 2 tons of ammo when you're getting the same ammo load with just one ton? No reason to waste the additional weight. Also, it has nothing to do with "BT correctness" it has everything to do with the fact that, IMO, it isn't needed because of the accuracy we, as players, have. Again, if the game was relying on a RNG to determine hit/miss then I can see doubling the ammo with the doubling of the armor.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 July 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

As someone who loves ACs all my designs have PPCs as well or instead of as the canon ammo allowances have never worked well away from the TT. Even when I have increased ammo allowances I still have this nagging fear that it may not be enough.

Not trying to start an argument but shouldn't that be the inherent fear of ammo based units to begin with? If you could load enough ammo to not have to worry about running out during an engagement, why even have ammo as a consideration?

Quote

Time will tell of course. The other thing that doubling armour has done is to negate the AC20s advantage of being able to seriously damage, or even cripple, smaller mechs with one shot. Even a heavy had to be afraid of a Hunchback behind them. I know it makes games last longer, but it still concerns me.

Time will certainly tell but I don't think it has negated the AC/20 punch due to the fact that you can now, for the most part, guarantee that each round of that AC/20, when you chose to fire it, is not only going to hit but more than likely you'll be able to make sure it hits the same place. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the hand/eye coordination of the pilots behind the stick but it's something that's been seen in other MW games and even with the twin reticles, something that I think we're going to see here.

And I still think heavies, and even assaults are going to fear a mech packin an AC/20 or Gauss Rifle. Again, due to the inherent accuracy of the guy behind the stick. . . .

[Graphite]

Lycan, on 20 July 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

No, if ammo per ton was increased, you wouldn't have people loading fewer tons of ammo because there would be no need to.

Typo? That's the same as what I wrote...

Quote

Why load 2 tons of ammo when you're getting the same ammo load with just one ton? No reason to waste the additional weight.

Because almost all designs are "oh well, that'll just have to be enough ammo" not "maybe I have too much ammo", and because of the fear you mention yourself - even though players are much more accurate than dice they still worry about being left without ammo.

Anyway, even if I was wrong and they did lower ammo that's a much smaller problem to live with than ballistic weapons being abandoned en-mass (where allowed by hardpoints) for energy weapons.

Quote

Not trying to start an argument but shouldn't that be the inherent fear of ammo based units to begin with? If you could load enough ammo to not have to worry about running out during an engagement, why even have ammo as a consideration?

With double armour that fear is going to be a much larger, stronger one, which just increases the attraction of energy weapons.

Quote

Time will certainly tell but I don't think it has negated the AC/20 punch due to the fact that you can now, for the most part, guarantee that each round of that AC/20, when you chose to fire it, is not only going to hit but more than likely you'll be able to make sure it hits the same place.

There was always a possibility an AC20 shot would blow off a leg, or strip the armour off the torso and hit the engine. That's not possible any more.

As well as increasing use of energy weapons, this is going to give us delights such as (for example) Catapults sacrificing armour to pack in 4x LRM20, knowing full well a surprise PPC shot in the back from a flanking light isn't going to take them out.

Edited by Graphite, 20 July 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[JFlash49]

no no no no and no...do it the hard way. dont rely only on missiles uses your lasers to finish the job or start it

[Nik Van Rhijn]

we know that the devs have said that thee is a "dropship" mode which gives you access to four mechs in a match. Their way of allowing re-spawn. I can't see this working at all for ammo reliant mechs. It does no good to be an excellent pilot if you have to try and kill 4 times the opposing number of mechs. You will die after yiour ammo runs out to pilots in fresh mechs.
For the standard 1 life matches. Unmodifed mechs come with 1 or 2 tons of ammo for their main weapon. When piloting a Hunchback I would always add another ton of ammo at least. Don't forget MW4 gave much more shots per ton than the TT figures which MWO seem to be working off. I want to be able to choose to put enough ammo on my mech to give me a chance of lasting a match, at least until close to the end. Ammo explosions are already a big risk. Ballistics are always a marginal choice in MW games against energy weapons. Effectively halving their ammo per ton will probably push them too far to the negative.
Not everybody likes or wants to use lasers, it will make for a boring game.