310 replies to this topic

[Gauge]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

And thats why Azantia made a good catch.. I don't think everyone sees the scope of this. IT sounds like that would be the case, but in fact the doubled Atlas can take a significant ratio higher damage than a doubled Jenner can.



If the gain was not exponentially incremental as weight increased (or the curve diverged less), it might be more equitable.

X2 Armor across the board heavily favors the Heavier mechs (up to, and by half again) with high base values which they get a multiple of.

Put most elegantly. It increases the damage absorbency exponentially as the base value increases with a static non-weighted multiplier applied. (damn I'm tired)

Or in game terms, an Jenner can take twice the beating it used to great... but an Atlas can take 2.6 times the beating it used to.

And again.. to reiterate, If this is true at launch it definitely will detract from the advertised role warfare over weight warfare statements broadcast. We aren't in open beta yet, so its hard to send out signal flares and complain, since i promised not to. But it is something to keep your sharp eye on.

Final thought, I concur that something needs to be done to extend the life of matches for all players, I can tell you that this methodology is lazy and inequitable. There are calculations that will enable both longer and fairly termed game play without nerfing or godcrowning one weight class over or under the others. I think this was a simple barge to get some play testing in, a more refined, and verified system is likely to be in play at launch.

Why does the chart you posted say 307 goes to 614, but the graph you posted shows 300ish going to 900ish?
Also, what does the x-axis on the graph represent?
Sorry, I am crazy sleepy right now, so it may be very obvious, and I'm just a baddie at the moment.

[Yeach]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

I didnt even take into effect the "no damage bleed over" into the double armor argument....that makes it worse. Ha.

A turn in tabletop is 10 seconds......just to clarify...

Theres your answer of why armor was doubled.
Gameplay showed that weapons recycled or around than 5 seconds.
So basically they were doubling the armor so they could reduce the recycle time to 5 seconds... unless you want all weapons to fire at 10 seconds as per TT rules.

Changing one set of parameters would change the other set.
I rather go by the spirit of TT than rather than the hard TT actual stats.

The two TT relationships I have been hounding are the
Armor, weapon damage and ammo/heat relationship
and the
weapon range, mech speed relationship

[Joe Mallad]

Guys! Wait! First off... I just opened this thread to point out that I and a few others noticed that the armor values seem to have been doubled across the board. I was not meaning this to turn into a thread where everyone then complains about how the larger mech can now outlast anything else and it give them an advantage. To be honest the larger mech should have a bit more of an advantage when it comes to armor and staying power. They are stronger and heavier after all. The lighter end mech have speed on their side that they like they always have had the ability to do... Outrun and outmaneuver the big boys and play hit and run. On the note of damage to mech now as it again, seems that armor has been doubled. Has everyone forgot about your skill trees? Remember just because say I play a swayback with 8 medium lasers and another guy has the same mech and load out... It does not mean we will dish out the same damage when we hit each other with those 8 medium lasers. What if I have myself skilled up enough in that (if I remember right) there wasthe ability to deal 2.5 extra damage and so on? See where I'm going with this? There will be skills that allow you to deal more damage than normal or to even take less damage when hit this is more than just I hit you you hit me... There will be many skills offensively and deffencivly involved as well.

Go over to the DEVS corner( forgot what thread) but look for the skill trees and than decide if uping the armor is such a bad thing

[Jack Gallows]

Azantia is giving a strong and good case for the developers to look at and seriously consider their decision for use of double armor values over regular armor values. The fact we haven't seen everything doesn't enter the equation as much as people seem to think, we have to speculate on what we have not what we don't have. He's voicing his concern, asking for clarification and adding what he believes is the best course for the game. And he has the right to do so, until such time PGI gives us more info/statements.

Double the armor values so heavily favors higher weight tonnages that you're going to see more and more pilots picking those heavies or assaults, regardless of the speed deficit because they can take the beating necessary to get into range and utterly destroy the lighter 'mechs.

As has been said before, we're treading into MW4 territory, those games last longer then they should...end up being circle jerks, and who can pack more weapons on the biggest 'mech. Doubling armor may not make it as bad as this, but it's pushing it in that direction. Canon armor values leaves matches to being smarter, makes you take into consideration just what you're doing...and still allows lighter machines a place on the battlefield instead of relating them to nothing.

We need to voice our desire for canon armor values, because they're better for the game then this doubled armor.

*Edit* To further push the issue, imagine when the Clans hit. You think the disparity is bad NOW? Think of how badly these number inflate on Clan 'mechs!

Edited by Jack Gallows, 19 May 2012 - 05:34 AM.

[Toothman]

Pvt Dancer, on 18 May 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Yeah... it worries me as well, specially when it felt like a fight to /not/ get ACs nerfed as DoT weapons. With armor doubled, why nerf any weapon then? Apparently lasers and the like are DoT at 1.5-3 second times. I guess the animation looks cool, but with double armors... I dunno.

All I can say is I hope there will be a 'hardcore' version that has TT Armor and Damage with damage overflow. This just feels like MW2 (non-hardcore) where it took an entire clip to drop a guy, so everyone ran around with dual guns like re-tards because sniper rifles and other semi-auto guns were worthless.

*MW= Modern Warfare 2, not Mech Warrior

If you get that let me know so I can repeatedly kill you in 3-5 seconds until you understand.

Jack Gallows, on 19 May 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

Azantia is giving a strong and good case for the developers to look at and seriously consider their decision for use of double armor values over regular armor values. The fact we haven't seen everything doesn't enter the equation as much as people seem to think, we have to speculate on what we have not what we don't have. He's voicing his concern, asking for clarification and adding what he believes is the best course for the game. And he has the right to do so, until such time PGI gives us more info/statements.

Double the armor values so heavily favors higher weight tonnages that you're going to see more and more pilots picking those heavies or assaults, regardless of the speed deficit because they can take the beating necessary to get into range and utterly destroy the lighter 'mechs.

As has been said before, we're treading into MW4 territory, those games last longer then they should...end up being circle jerks, and who can pack more weapons on the biggest 'mech. Doubling armor may not make it as bad as this, but it's pushing it in that direction. Canon armor values leaves matches to being smarter, makes you take into consideration just what you're doing...and still allows lighter machines a place on the battlefield instead of relating them to nothing.

We need to voice our desire for canon armor values, because they're better for the game then this doubled armor.

*Edit* To further push the issue, imagine when the Clans hit. You think the disparity is bad NOW? Think of how badly these number inflate on Clan 'mechs!

Totally off target. What we have to do is figure the devs have been awake during the hundreds of hours they have been play testing and have gotten the values close to right for launch. When beta gets here it should be pretty close to where they want it and they should be able to tweak it to exactly where they want it. I'd hold off on jumping off the ledge until at least a month after live.

[HenryTD]

Wow - reading this thread, I feel like it would fit right in on the forums of another BT-type game.

I think I understand arguments from both sides.

Manual targetting by a player is more precise than the 2d6 random hit tables from CBT. Better aiming will (usually) drill through armor faster than the random hit locations from 2d6. One way to reduce the effect of the concentrated aimed fire is increasing the armor rating.

In CBT, if a mech would take (SWAG number) 8 shots before it fell, due to damage hitting several locations, but the same mech falls in 2~3 shots with aimed fire, I can see where the game would lose some of it's feel.

What about changes to the aiming system? Increase the size of the aiming box. When you are on target, you will still hit, but there are no guarantees as to WHERE you will hit. Now the damage can be spread out in a system that looks more like CBT. With less concentrated damage, you wouldn't need thicker armor to get the same battlefield endurance you had in the tabletop game.
Can't there also be adjustements in recycle rates for weapons? If you can fire a Small Laser twice while a PPC is still recharging, that limits the power of the heaviest hitting guns. (It also increases the heat output for the smaller weapons, making it possible for a Locust to overheat and shut down.) ACs would recycle faster than energy weapons, but since they run out of ammo, too, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
And I have also seen recycle times done poorly, where a mech with multiple MGs can (once it gets close enough) shred the leg of an Assault with it's almost instant recycle, no-heat and high-ammo weapons.

It seems like, by increasing armor, they may be trying to reduce problems they've seen in similar games in the past. I don't know if that is the best way. It may cause other problems, as many hoped-for solutions do. But we'll have to try playing the game before we can tell.

Edited by HenryTD, 19 May 2012 - 05:45 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Ive heard the "dice" / randomness Argument 100 times before. Clan pilots can (and did) have called shots when using a targeting computer and could target just your CT. Likewise there were rules for "linked weapon fire" much like group fire in the electronic games, and when you shot them together, they would all hit the same location. (I never played these rules, but I know they existed.) So to just try to claim the dice excuse is not a full fledged defense. If you want to play in a game where an atlas can take 16 PPC blasts to the CT (keep in mind even the best pilots miss, we dont know how the hit boxes are being played out, AND a good pilot will make you miss even more than you already do) then you fall under the same category of agree to disagree.

To ignore the math however based on "dice rolls" before you even think about it is pure ignorance.

I don't think you get it. What do later/optional rules have to do with anything? The game used randomly placed shots. MWO uses aimed shots. Big difference.

Secondly, doubled armor and doubled ammo balances out by definition except for time ie number of shots. All you seem to be focusing on is how long it will take you to kill an enemy mech. What about how long it will take you to die? Oh yea did ya forget about that or are you one of those guys who never dies? /sarcasm off

The game needs to be fun. Dying in the first 2 minutes, then sitting around while the enemy force chases your surprisingly good at hiding teammate for 28 minutes doesn't sound like fun to me.

Add in Roles matter. Indirect fire is a real possibility. Lights can kill Assaults. Lots of things will be different. The devs aren't making this in their garage. They have already apparently changed things based on their testing. So relax and wait for the open beta. Then you can spaz if you think the game sucks.

[Yeach]

Arggghhhh..

If WEAPON DAMAGE is RETAINED and recyle is HALVED, the OBVIOUS answer is to DOUBLE ARMOR to RETAIN TT stats.

Why can't people get in their mind that MW3 was WAY faster than TT battles should be
and MW4 was closer (not exact but closer IMO) because they accounted for recycle time.

Someone tell me how many turns a typical battle takes? multiply that by 10 seconds to get the TOTAL time please.

Jack Gallows, on 19 May 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

Azantia is giving a strong and good case for the developers to look at and seriously consider their decision for use of double armor values over regular armor values. The fact we haven't seen everything doesn't enter the equation as much as people seem to think, we have to speculate on what we have not what we don't have. He's voicing his concern, asking for clarification and adding what he believes is the best course for the game. And he has the right to do so, until such time PGI gives us more info/statements.

Double the armor values so heavily favors higher weight tonnages that you're going to see more and more pilots picking those heavies or assaults, regardless of the speed deficit because they can take the beating necessary to get into range and utterly destroy the lighter 'mechs.

As has been said before, we're treading into MW4 territory, those games last longer then they should...end up being circle jerks, and who can pack more weapons on the biggest 'mech. Doubling armor may not make it as bad as this, but it's pushing it in that direction. Canon armor values leaves matches to being smarter, makes you take into consideration just what you're doing...and still allows lighter machines a place on the battlefield instead of relating them to nothing.

We need to voice our desire for canon armor values, because they're better for the game then this doubled armor.

*Edit* To further push the issue, imagine when the Clans hit. You think the disparity is bad NOW? Think of how badly these number inflate on Clan 'mechs!

Are you okay with 10 second recycle times too? Because thats TT also.

[Kreisel]

Ok, going to look at this from another perspective. Lets take a glance at how long it would take to kill a mech with double armor values. since we don't have cycle times of for MWO I'll use those of the most recent MW, the much maligned MW4.

• 3 Seconds for a Medium Laser
  
• 6 Seconds for a PPC
  
• 7 seconds for a AC20

Ok, so it's somewhat far fetched but using those values how long would an Atlas live if the player shooting him doesn't miss at all? Lets start with the weapon on cooldown, just to make it a little longer. I'll use the number of hits to kill an double armored Atlas that was posted earlier in this thread. Mind you this is all if they are taking damage from no other source, no shots are missed, and they wait a full weapon cycle before firing the first shot, but fire the rest right away against the most armored mech in the game to date.

• An Awesome significantly overkills our Atlas in 36 seconds (16 hits/3 PPC's per shot = less than 6 full hits)
  
• Using only a single weapon, the AC 20, you can kill an Atlas in 56 Seconds
  
• A Jenner JR7-F could core an Atlas in 24 seconds. (4 lasers means 8 trigger pulls = 32 hits)

As a side note, that Jenner you have to shoot twice with an AC20, 14 seconds to live. 4 PCC hits from an Awesome 12 seconds (and 2 misses), remember, this is if the weapon is already on cooldown when they first see the jenner.
Lets say we use the TT values:

• Once combat is joined a single Awesome could remove the heaviest, most armored mech currently in the game in less time than it took it's player to load into the game (and remember no respawns folks!). 18 seconds if his guns are on cooldown, if he shoots the moment he sees him, 12 seconds. All they have to do is not miss the center of a large slow moving target 3 times.
  
• if you had 3 Awesomes and worked together to focus fire, you could easily remove any assault mech from the match the moment they came into view (and one of the 3 Awesomes can even half miss his shot and still accomplish this.)

Mind you this wont happen. Because people will miss, damage will be spread around. Heat will be a concern, Cycle times will not match up with those I'm using, ect. But... it ought to give us a sense of why we might want double armor values.

In a video game we want to be IN the fight for more than 30 seconds. Sluggish Aiming is NOT an answer for this, sluggish gameplay is not fun, remember how it feels when your lagging in an fps or your frame rate is terrible? Thats not enjoyable, why would you want the game to be modeled on that? Making the Mechs highly inaccurate, taking away the players ability to aim, also is a verrry poor choice, that makes players feel disconnected from the action, not in control, it's very frustrating to have a foe centered in your crosshairs and miss (not to mention this removes any notion of skill being involved with hitting things).

Something really overlooked about how speed keeps Light mechs alive in TT in ways it can't in a real time game: No one gets to shoot during the movement phase. Unlike in the TT, if I have to cross in front of a mechs front arc to get behind him, he can shoot me in that moment I'm crossing in front of him. Think how it would be for those lights if you didn't have to wait until the end of the turn to shoot, but could stop the moment they crossed into any hex you have line of sight on and fire right then.

Edited by Kreisel, 19 May 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Wolfe Des Krieg]

Cheese and Rice, half of you guys are practically panicking before the beta even comes out. The whole point of a beta is for gamers to playtest and give feedback to devs so they can tweak the balance and make the game better and more balanced in the final release.

[Owl Cutter]

There is a model well-known to RTS gamers which is used to describe the relationship between durability, damage output, weapon reach and unit movement reach: the rock-paper-scissors relationship between pikemen, archers and cavalry. Pikemen offer the best blend of durability and damage output: base attrition power, if you will. Cavalry offer much less bang-for-buck in that sense, so an equal investment will just get smashed against pikemen, but their greater speed allows them to overrun archers long before the archers' shots during that time can even up the fight. In turn, archers can attack pikemen from impunity since they have a range advantage and no mobility disadvantage vs. pikemen.

The relative values for movement, attack range, attack power, and hit points are supposed to be tweaked to where the rock-paper-scissors relationship emerges in the most satisfying way. If Piranha shifted the balance from power to durability, then as noted by several other posters here it might be to counterweigh the fact that players are gonna be much better than the dice at landing hits in general and, depending on skill, anywhere from moderately to hugely dramatically better at focusing those hits on the desired location.

In translating from the turn-based die-rolling game to a realtime skill-based game there are bound to be a lot of unexpected consequences that need to be compensated for, which will mostly be found through testing. Discussion of possible such consequences is good, and might even help avoid errors by bringing things up or shedding light on why something is going wrong, but the few points of actual information we have are nowhere near enough to justify worrying that the people actually making and presumably constantly playtesting the game are in danger of failing to anticipate a mistake that we can see coming. So far as I know, we don't have hit percentage numbers for the testers, or even have numbers for movement capability in terms of distance relative to weapon ranges per "turn's worth" of weapon fire, so we don't even know whether the game actually follows the tabletop game accurately or deviates wildly in terms of that balance. Heck, we don't even know whether a "turn's worth" is the same amount of time from one weapon to the next or varies wildly! I love the speculation, but it takes a massive flying leap to conclude that the game is going to be broken. Relax and enjoy the anticipation, we can't know such things until the game is opened up.

[Helmer]

Zephram Zaphod, on 18 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Bryan posted a list of things that will kill you. It was very short and losing both legs wasn't on it.

In the Developer Q&A 5 It states....

How many different possible ways can your mech get destroyed or "mechwarrior" die (i.e. Your mechwarrior takes damage from high heat levels and can "pass out" or "die" if it takes enough damage, ect..). -=Outlaw=

[DAVID] To destroy a BattleMech, you have to destroy the head, destroy the center torso, or destroy both legs. You, the MechWarrior, can never die.


Lively discussion in here, that's great! Let's just make sure to keep it civil and constructive.

Until the game is played lets please avoid using absolutes , imperatives and negativity in our statements, shall we? The "Double armor" could be easily explain away , as the bottom two values (Heat Efficiency and Firepower) do not seem to be working, perhaps the armor values have a bug.

Or, perhaps, Armor is double and weapon damage values are double to compensate for the fact that Lasers are now DOT and they wanted to break it into smaller units of damage per unit of time without using fractions.

Or ,perhaps, due to the fact that it appears weapons fire faster than the 10 seconds allotted in the TT rules it was apparent for gameplay that values needed to be doubled.

I personally hope they follow the TT values are closely as possible. However I also feel Fun > TT rules. And as long as its balanced and they avoid past issues with other Mechwarrior titles, I'll be happy.


So far it appears PGI has been hitting many of the right notes fans of Mechwarrior/Battletech want to hear. Personally I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt until the game launches, and they have a few months to deal with any unforeseen balance issues.






Cheers.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Why is the slope wrong? Where are the axis? And why do the graph values fail to reflect the chart data?
If your armor points double, then you can take 2x damage, not 2.6x. Where did the value "2.6" come from? I saw no equations.

If you have 2x armor and 2x ammo, then nothig changes except the duration of the fight.

You can strip 200 points of armor with 10 rounds of AC/20, and you can strip 400 points of armor with 20 rounds of AC/20. Double armor is countered by double ammo. End.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 May 2012 - 08:14 AM.

[Ramien]

Jack Gallows, on 19 May 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

*Edit* To further push the issue, imagine when the Clans hit. You think the disparity is bad NOW? Think of how badly these number inflate on Clan 'mechs!

You mean not at all? Clan 'mechs do not gain any inherent armor advantage over IS 'mechs. They're still limited to the same maximum armor value for their mech size as an IS 'mech. An Atlas is only three points shy of that maximum limit for a 100 ton 'mech, because it would be silly to waste the extra half ton of armor and not spend all the points. A clan 100 ton 'mech using FF could max that tonnage exactly and have a 1% armor advantage over an Atlas. That's the huge disparity you're worried about.

[Sprouticus]

Prosperity Park, on 19 May 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Why is the slope wrong? Where are the axis? And why do the graph values fail to reflect the chart data?
If your armor points double, then you can take 2x damage, not 2.6x. Where did the value "2.6" come from? I saw no equations.

If you have 2x armor and 2x ammo, then nothing changes except the duration of the fight.

You can strip 200 points of armor with 10 rounds of AC/20, and you can strip 400 points of armor with 20 rounds of AC/20. Double armor is countered by double ammo. End.

As much as I dislike Az's chicken little mentality and unwillingness to acknowledge that this is a beta and we could easily adjust that % up or down in the beta, he does have one good point

1) with greater armor, the benefit of speed is inflated, and it would encourage very short range combat. Assuming the same amount of tactics, you have abetter chance of arriving in short range able to fight in a good condition to fight as a brawler. Owl's cavalry/archer/pikemen example is correct.


However, Az also ignore the change to fire rates pointed out by Helmer and a couple of others. (We dont know the RoF on weapons, and that is still being tweaks I assume, but from the videos, it looks like 4-6 seconds for most, maybe 7-8 for AC20?)

What double armor and double fire rate would effectively do is spread damage more. The effectively makes Especially with lasers, which are DoT already, it will be hard to focus fire on one location. In a way Az, you should be HAPPY about that, it reflects your all-mighty TT more accurately.

What it also means is an assault or heavy with a Gauss Rifle or 2 PPC's cant leg a light in 1 shot, effectively taking the one advantage a light has away in 1 shot.


But all of this discussion is really just hot air. When the beta starts we will see what the damage, RoF, speed, and armor equation means in REAL gameplay. If heavies and assaults are too dominant, or if brawlers can close too easily without fear of long range weapons, or if any of a hundred other factors come into play (torso twist for lights and mediums might make them far too deadly up close because the can get behind assaults to quickly or convergence on long range weapons makes them less effective or convergence on short range weapons spreads damage too much, etc, etc, etc) then IT WILL BE ADJUSTED.

That's why it is a beta. PGI will make the game the way they like it and the way they want it to play. If they want a game that is short range focused with LR weapons generally being support and softening up before the furball happens, they will adjust it to that end. If they want a game that is more LR focused with some maps allowing for short range engagements (like MW4 mercs pre-mechpacks) , that's how they will do it. In the end the stats are just numbers for PGI to tweak to make the game the best representation of BT as they see it. Not how I see it or any of you. We may end up agreeing or disagree. We can suggest and express concerns. But in the end our opinion is filtered by the vision for the game they have and their own opinions.

Edited by Sprouticus, 19 May 2012 - 09:27 AM.

[Tyzh]

Woah guys, woah! This is bad! Let's look at this in a less convoluted way, mmm? Here, I'll make up some hypothetical example mechs. That's fun.

Little Mech: 100 points of armor; potential damage output of 25 per round of combat.

Big Al: 500 points of armor, potential damage output of 50 per round of combat.

Big Al here outclasses Little Mech by quite a bit. Little Mech probably shouldn't engage Big Al head on, but lets say he does. Big Al will reduce Little Mech's armor to 0 in 2 turns of firing at 50 damage each. In those two rounds of combat it takes Big Al to kill him, Little Mech reduces Big Al's armor by 50. So, the combat results in little mech dying and Big Al losing 10% of his armor.

Now, lets double the armor values.

Little Mech: 200 points of armor, 25 damage per round. (That's a gain of 100 armor.)
Big Al: 1000 points of armor, 50 damage per round. (That's a gain of 500 armor!)

Obviously, this is terrible from a balance perspective, right? The doubling of the armor really favors Big Al, who already had an advantage. He benefits from the armor buff 5 times as much as Little Mech! Just awful. If they were to fight now, it would take Big Al 4 turns to reduce Little Mech's armor to 0. In those 4 turns Little Mech would deal 100 damage to Big Al. Big Al would destroy the Little Mech at the cost of 10% of his total armor.

10% both times. Double armor means combat takes twice as long. Little Mech gets twice as much time to deal damage before he dies. Doubling the armor doesn't benefit Big Al in any greater way than it does Little Mech.

Edited by Tyzh, 19 May 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Helmer brought to mind yet another possibility. Maybe they boosted the armor values just to increase the fight times so they could test something other than weapons?

[Sporkosophy]

Eh, fight times need a boost over the last MW game anyways.

[Sassori]

Convergence will stop coring issues if you are moving unless you are running straight at someone which is pretty foolish even for an Atlas.

Increased Armor multiplies the effects of speed reducing risk as between convergence and slower movement a light mech can survive hell to ensure he gets in the back.

Even if the recycle times are reduced by 50% it doesn't alter the convergence factor. Take the vaunted awesome, one ppc in an arm, two in the torso, actually getting all three onto a target in the same location will require cose to zero transverse between the two. This greatly magnifies the effect of speed and armor as well.

This will encourage sniping since the further distance of the target the less transverse is generated at the same speeds. In a heads up fight then yes things are somewhat balanced with the greater gain going to the heavier mech but in any other situation this changes to the Light being able to survive a couple volleys and get in and kill with impunity as 4 medium lasers will cut through the rear armor on anything pretty quick.

As far as the aiming 'sluggishness' goes, umm... we enjoyed plenty of other MechWarrior games that didn't have point and click targeting, why do we need it now? It just needs to be slowed down to reduce accuracy, or the targeting reticule needs to be increased so damage isn't pin point accurate. Either one.

[Vexgrave Lars]

gauge, on 19 May 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Why does the chart you posted say 307 goes to 614, but the graph you posted shows 300ish going to 900ish?
Also, what does the x-axis on the graph represent?
Sorry, I am crazy sleepy right now, so it may be very obvious, and I'm just a baddie at the moment.

Sorry I didnt format it.. just wanted to show the curve.. it was 4am.. and I hadn't slept.

The Curve is true, even if the axis are not formatted.

The more you have as a base value X 2 incrementally increases because the base value is higher. This will give greater armor values more for those higher base values.

Large Pizza 12 Slice, and a small pizza 6 slices... both of different weights and slice counts.

Double the orders of each but discard the weight (gain or loss)

2 Large Pizzas are 24 slices

2 Small Pizzas are 12 Slices

Again, I'm saying that during pre-lanch ramp, this is fine, its in testing.

2 Larges feed half again more people than 2 smalls... that's all I am confirming here. Azantia's math is accurate.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 19 May 2012 - 10:56 AM.