27 replies to this topic

[fatcat01]

What this really comes down to is whether or not we will be able to punch a hole in a armor section without destroying that section...

Anyway, my point is that one ton of armor on the leg of a Raven is way different than the same amount on a Atlas (extreme example). Why? because of surface area; that ton of armor is going to be spread pretty thin on an Atlas but will be alot thicker on the bird leg of a Raven.

[Dihm]

It is an abstraction.

[Ramien]

I don't think a Raven's leg can hold a ton of armor... But even if it could, there's still the same amount of material if both have the same amount of armor points allocated (nigh impossible if you are comparing an atlas and a raven), so for the ease of simulation, the same amount of armor is going to be destroyed if hit by an equal weapon.

That and the size difference isn't as huge as you're assuming, or else there'd be fewer critical spaces on a Raven.

[William Petersen]

It's a game?

That's why a Raven is limited to one ton of armour per leg and the Atlas can carry 2.5?

Breaking up the armour by more than sections would be *far* more cumbersome for a table-top (which is already a nightmare of charts and dice), but also quite a bit more cumbersome for a video game (particularly when dealing with unit customization).

[UncleKulikov]

Before anything, how would "honestly" calculating the armor make the game better?

Tanks are measured by armor thickness, this is a similar measure.

For both the Raven and the Atlas the armor is assumed to be of uniform thickness on all facets of the leg, or more armored on vulnerable portions depending on how you imagine it.

[Malkenson]

It is a game, and Fiction <> Reality!

[Naughtyboy]

just a thought...a raven is what 4.5 ton of armor...an Atlas got like 19.5 tons? pretty big diffrence..but its pretty hard to compare a Atlas to a raven as they are not simular built...Atlas(human)-Raven(god knows what its to resemble...a bird without wings?).better to compare a commando to a enforcer or a jaegermech to an Atlas...what you say?

[Ghost]

It's not dishonest, it's an abstract method of telling you how well-armored the 'Mech is. As a general rule of thumb, if the amount of armor tonnage is 20% of the total tonnage of the 'Mech, then that 'Mech is considered to be "heavily armored" for its weight class.

[fatcat01]

What I am trying to say is that if you have two mechs with the same mass of armor (say 10 tons), and mech A has less surface area to cover than mech B then mech A will have thicker armor and therefore be better protected. Therefore, looking at the weight of the armor does not truly tell you how well you are protected.

[Monky]

This is why armor is actually measured in points (tonnage is an abstraction to help you picture what's going on, as mentioned earlier) and counts for the whole limb rather than the localized area that is hit. If you have 20 points of armor on your left leg, and someone hits the exact same spot 4 times with a medium laser, it will have the effect of removing that 20 points of armor from the whole leg and allowing internal damage.

The reason for this is because it is a simulation built from a tabletop game, transferred to a video game. It's technically possible to give every individual hit box (a point on a model where a 'weapon' can intersect it and score a 'hit' usually separated by smaller objects in a 'limb', like a thigh or calf or knee) its own armor value, in fact, this can be done easily, but it risks a drastic rebalance of the original battletech rules which work well enough overall. I'm not saying they'll never consider this, but it's unlikely, especially right out of the gate.

[DaZur]

What weighs more a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?



Keep in mind the tonnage denoted for extremities represents total coverage area to include anterior, medial and posterior.

Edited by DaZur, 26 April 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Hollister]

The one of the left is showing simulated damage, the other one is showing what would be actual damage.

Edited by Hollister, 26 April 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Wyzak]

Hollister I have to say that graphic is pretty neat but maybe instead of tracking all the functional armor separately they could just show cosmetic damage that matches up with the weapon impact (bullet holes, autocannon pits, laser scars, etc)

[Hollister]

Also another thing that does not translate real well from real damage to simulated damage is armor penetration.

lets say we have a tank with 1 ton of armor on the side but that armor is broken up into 5 different plates to cover the entire side. With that being said i only have to penetrate 1/5 of a ton of armor to defeat it.

Edited by Hollister, 26 April 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[JadeTimberwolf]

DaZur, on 26 April 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

What weighs more a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks?



Keep in mind the tonnage denoted for extremities represents total coverage area to include anterior, medial and posterior.

Counter question, what weighs more, a ton of ale or a tonne of ale?

Ok, on to the topic, also keep in mind that depending on the mech (assuming they keep to TT for this) you can only allocate so many points of armor to certain locations and depending on the type of armor you are using you only get so many point to distribute per ton, example using standard armor on a 30 ton mech you get 16 points per ton but can allocate a maximum of 14 to a leg but on a 100 ton mech using standard it is still 16 points per ton but you can allocate a maximum of 42 to a leg. Not unfair if your looking at the weight of the armor because all mechs get the same amount of armor per ton just larger mechs can put more into certain spaces the exception being the head which has a maximum of 9 regardless of mech tonnage (not including internal structure which is figured automatically by tonnage and not allocated by the player)

[Solis Obscuri]

By this logic, an Atlas should also have about 4x as many critical slots as a Raven, and any shot through armor on the Raven should be a guaranteed critical on at least 2 systems, while the AS7-D Atlas should only have about a 10% chance...

[Hollister]

Solis Obscuri, on 26 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

By this logic, an Atlas should also have about 4x as many critical slots as a Raven, and any shot through armor on the Raven should be a guaranteed critical on at least 2 systems, while the AS7-D Atlas should only have about a 10% chance...

The only reason they have the same amount of critical slots is for table top balance issues.

[JadeTimberwolf]

Solis Obscuri, on 26 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

By this logic, an Atlas should also have about 4x as many critical slots as a Raven, and any shot through armor on the Raven should be a guaranteed critical on at least 2 systems, while the AS7-D Atlas should only have about a 10% chance...

As Hollister said but there is another reason, if you want a fluffy reason that is, internal gear such as coolent lines, electrical lines, myomers, and the structure itself would be larger/more numerous as well taking up any potential extra critical spaces.

[KageRyuu]

fatcat01, on 26 April 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

What this really comes down to is whether or not we will be able to punch a hole in a armor section without destroying that section...

Anyway, my point is that one ton of armor on the leg of a Raven is way different than the same amount on a Atlas (extreme example). Why? because of surface area; that ton of armor is going to be spread pretty thin on an Atlas but will be alot thicker on the bird leg of a Raven.

Actually no, no it's not dishonest if you understand how they measure the protective value of each type of armor by tonnage, because a ton of standard armor is 16 points of armor on the TT, while a ton of IS Ferro-Fibrous Armor is 17.92 points or 12% more points per ton than standard, and Clan Ferro-Fibrous Armor is 19.2 points of armor or 20% more points per ton than standard.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"Actually no, no it's not dishonest if you understand how they measure the protective value of each type of armor by tonnage"

I think you may have stumbled onto something there. It is likely his lack of understanding that has him misunderstanding.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 April 2012 - 07:32 AM.