310 replies to this topic

[Sassori]

That is true about press demo's. It's also true that there could be a lot of different reasons for it. like I said, trying to rebalance firing rates and damage etc.

That doesn't mean we should just not discuss stuff. Forum be a /VERY/ boring place if we all just accepted everything and were total brown nosing yes-men.

There's been some good ideas here, slower aiming to make pin point accuracy harder and more skill based, changing the targeting reticule based on movement, heat, and such. Doesn't mean those ideas need to go away.

I don't think anyone is saying make it so hard to aim that it's no fun for example (I certainly am not, I just want it to be harder/more difficult than frikken point and click). Lets take a look at the games over the ages, people remember what was /hard/ to do, because it was hard. If it's easy there is no challenge and it becomes humdrum. There are a lot of ways that a person can make a game harder. It could be the grind, it could simply be challenge rating, but every PvP'er I've ever talked to has always said human opponents are the most difficult in any game so why should we make it be point and click easy?

Look back to Unreal Tournament, the only weapon with true point and click was sniper and that enforced a zoom in which made it tricky to hit a moving target (Try facing off against 16 Godlike opponents in UT, jebus they were insane) admittedly the blue lightning gun I cannot remember the name of and the insta-gib were pretty fast but they had travel time which had to be accounted for.

Point and click accuracy is bad, it's not thematic, and it makes for boring game play. I hope they change it before beta/release.

[Azantia]

*sigh* More proof that public schooling is winning the war against educated, free-thinking people with basic math skills.

Also to those who said read it, and read it again. Please do. I offered an opinion, and some math, and all of a sudden you guys think I havent thought of alternatives, am not capable of understanding that there are things that do not translate from tabletop to game (I agree with this and its a difficult task to implement) or are totally purist and ONLY WANT TABLETOP VALUES /RAGE!!!!

I am not saying armor doesnt need to be increased for "gameplay balance", it is my opinion its not broken and doesnt need to be changed. I dont have the numbers but I can project them, and I myself am okay with more fragile mechs. I am not against the idea of increased armor completely, but armor value should not be increased double across the board. If that is the solution to the problem of "combat endurance", they are making a huge mistake.

For those who missed it the first time :
My opinion will be clearly stated for the record. Are you ready?

If they double armor values (based on base values) It will favor Heavy and Assault mechs. The math does not lie. As such, all these "non-battletech / "non-mechwarrior" fans who are just here because its the "shiny new game" on the block will most certainly flock to heavy and assault mechs in scores because they get a pretty clear advantage against light and mediums. As stated before, this would break the paradigm of "role warfare". My thoughts on that were simple : anything that has the potential to remove the "battletech" from this "mechwarrior" game is not a good change. Make no mistake : giving Heavy and Assault mechs that clear an advantage over Lights and Mediums falls into the category of "removing battletech" from the game. If I wanted an arcade version of Battletech I would play MechAssault. If I wanted to play Tabletop, I would play Tabletop or Megamek. I want a solid simulation that takes the practical rules and captures the "feel" of the universe the way it was originally written. When an Atlas can take 16 PPCs (if they all hit in the CT) that very clearly breaks the "feel" of the universe, and yes, I have a problem with that.

If you dont, thats fine, that is your opinion. Ignoring the math to try to support your opinions however is ridiculously illogical.

Ask for clarification from the devs? Absolutely

Reserve judgment until we get more information? Sure, if you want

Ignore the math because OMGZ there are so many possibilities of why this happened!! /analytical failure : There is no difference between arguing possibilities or being concerned with screenshots of possible doubled armor values and presenting a possible scenario. Both make heavy use of assumption. The difference is, one argument has hard mathematics to show why it could possibly be a concern for the community based on TT values, which the company has used for several other facets of the game, and the other has pure, unsupported assumption. Not saying one is right or wrong, but seriously, think next time before you post. Especially next time you want to try to post a "OMGZ stop complaining" post or an argument vs a mathematical theorem with no math of your own.
Stop. Think. Count to 10. Then post.

Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion. But arguing just to argue, without presenting counter-points or clear explanations will add nothing to the conversation or get us any closer to middle ground.

Edited by Azantia, 20 May 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I hope so.

I'd like longer fights.

Jousting back and forth with each other...pot shots...falling back.

Running out and getting alpha'd and sitting out before doing much sort of sucks, so a little extra survivability would rock.

Edited by PANZERBUNNY, 20 May 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[Azantia]

PANZERBUNNY, on 20 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I hope so.

I'd like longer fights.

Jousting back and forth with each other...pot shots...falling back.

Running out and getting alpha'd and sitting out before doing much sort of sucks, so a little extra survivability would rock.

There is nothing wrong with the way he presented his opinion....some of you need to take notes. While I do not agree, I understand his opinion and why he has it. Above is the standard if you are not going to add mathematical conclusions or new / old knowledge from the mouth of the devs...please follow.

Edited by Azantia, 20 May 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Sassori]

Thing is Azantia, you cannot quantify playstyle into math.

If the light focuses entirely on flanking and getting into the back then the increased armor favors them since they can absorb more shots to get there. It's not always cut and dry 'Math says so!' situations. Especially not on a shifting battlefield.

Yes if the Light is stupid enough to go toe to toe with a heavier chassis it will lose and the heavier chassis will have more armor left to continue playing. That end result doesn't get altered by everyone having two times as much armor. What gets altered is the fringes, the things that don't quantify into math like ECM letting scouts sneak in close to have less a sprint where that 2x armor really changes the game for example.

To whit, as we don't know the full situation, it could benefit both in equally different ways so as to balance, we just don't know until we get our hands on it. We also don't know if the armor situation is going to remain into live either, or if damage rates have been changed.

If armor is doubled, and the AC/20 for example has been changed to 40 damage that fires every ten seconds then there's no impact at all on the AC/20. If a medium laser still does 5 damage however, and fires every 5 seconds it does have a change since that 5 damage isn't as important overall.

There's lots of variables that we don't know, and going the rampaging 'Public School' thing, isn't helping you any.

[Yeach]

Azantia, on 20 May 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

For those who missed it the first time :
My opinion will be clearly stated for the record. Are you ready?

If they double armor values (based on base values) It will favor Heavy and Assault mechs. The math does not lie. As such, all these "non-battletech / "non-mechwarrior" fans who are just here because its the "shiny new game" on the block will most certainly flock to heavy and assault mechs in scores because they get a pretty clear advantage against light and mediums. As stated before, this would break the paradigm of "role warfare". My thoughts on that were simple : anything that has the potential to remove the "battletech" from this "mechwarrior" game is not a good change. Make no mistake : giving Heavy and Assault mechs that clear an advantage over Lights and Mediums falls into the category of "removing battletech" from the game. If I wanted an arcade version of Battletech I would play MechAssault. If I wanted to play Tabletop, I would play Tabletop or Megamek. I want a solid simulation that takes the practical rules and captures the "feel" of the universe the way it was originally written. When an Atlas can take 16 PPCs (if they all hit in the CT) that very clearly breaks the "feel" of the universe, and yes, I have a problem with that.

If you dont, thats fine, that is your opinion. Ignoring the math to try to support your opinions however is ridiculously illogical.

I disagree. You forget to add the factors such as size and speed.
Light amd medium mechs are smaller and faster and thus making them harder to hit.

Doubling armor values goes for both light and heavier mechs so I don't see how that favours one over the other.

If you are on the side that MWO combat should be like Mechwarrior 3 then I also disagree.
Typical One alpha, two alpha, three and the mech is dead in the space of 30 seconds to a minute.
That to me is not BattleTech.

If it takes 16 PPC shots or just 2 PPC shots, my concern is the time it takes.
If it takes 30 seconds to take down an Atlas (minus headshots) then it is TOO FAST!!!

Edited by Yeach, 20 May 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

It is a pre-closed beta game at the moment. All ranges, dropzones, speeds, weapons, armors, equipment, terrain, player skill/ability, or any other features are for testing and developing towards a final product. What you have seen up until now is not that final product. Any and all discussions are m00t save by the whim of those that flog themselves to read our posts.

There, I've killed the forums. Have a nice daze!

[GaussDragon]

Finally read through this entire thread. At this point I'm just going to paraphrase:

I believe that doubling armor values while keeping weapon damage constant (i.e., greater armor to damage ratio) helps light mechs more than heavy ones.

Like other people have pointed out (or have probably pointed out already) in MW4, lights didn't have much survivability because they got ALPHASTOMPED so quickly. This was a result of a high damage to armor ratio. In a team game, most lights had trouble getting close and staying alive when they did because a team would primary it and let loose with a few overwhelming salvos. By upping the armor relative to the damage you allow a light mech more time to close in on his/her larger opponent, where the light mech has a relative advantage because the larger mech he is circling is easier to hit and the light mech he is piloting is harder to hit by virtue of his speed and the fact that, again, he is circling. In MW4, consistently hitting the CT of a small mech was harder to do than hitting the CT of a larger mech because A: It's smaller and B: faster.

[DoAAoD]

I have to scratch my head on this one,

Lets take a Awesome vs A Jenner for an example herein:

AWS-9M - The 9M is an upgrade of the Awesome that uses Star League technologies, and was introduced in 3049[5]. The 'Mech is built around a 320 Hermes XL Fusion engine, giving the 'Mech a top speed of 64.8 km/h. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks to allow this variant to be rearmed with three Fusigon Longtooth ER PPCs. The ER PPCs are backed up by two Hovertec Streak SRM-2s, a Magna 400P Medium Pulse Laser, and a Diverse Optics Type 10 Small Pulse Laser. BV (1.0) = 1,469[1], BV (2.0) = 1,812[9]

VS

JR7-K - The JR7-K adds a higher degree of survivability to the Jenner by upgrading the armor to Ferro-Fibrous, while removing a half ton of the armor. This provides virtually the same armor protection while adding CASE to the SRM-4ammunition. BV (1.0) = 694, BV (2.0) = 889[13]

Now, just looking at this, and all the talk of 5 second AWS ERPPCing and the the doubling of armor would make it pretty hopeless for the Jenner, and provoke quite a bit of /ragequit!

​However!!!!!!

• We do not have pinpoint accuracy from all weapons and instant convergence, along with weaponry that delivers its full damage in an instant.
  
• That AWS only has only certain arm mounted weaponry able to keep up with speed of a duck and dodging of the JR that can move quite a bit faster as the Dev's have already stated that the torso rotation is a feature differentiating mech's. (ERPPC and SSRM2)
  
• While armor may be doubled, and a JR can only fire its SRM4/4 MLAS ever 5 seconds

JR: 20 heat vs 3x4 (MLAS) +3 (SRM4) = 20 Heatsinks vs 15 heat on an alpha strike.

AWS 40 heat vs 15x3 (ERPPC) + 4 (MPLS) + 2x2 (SSRM2) + 2 (SPLS) = 40 Heatsinks vs heat 55 on an alpha strike.

Chances are the AWS is going to be cooking the pilot quick/Suffering heat slowdowns/shutdowns as the JR is jumping around.


Taking all this into account, I would be willing to wager the JR would be able to bring all its wepons to bear every time it ducked in and out, and the AWS would manage a SSRM every time it saw the JR, with perhaps a glancing ERPPC shot.

Suddenly this seems a bit more fair, quaff?

Edited by DoA_AoD, 20 May 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[shd0hwk]

I have been playing BT since it's inception (BattleDroids) and have played MWRPG, The Tabletop, and video games. Of the video games, I thought that MW2 and 3 were pretty good, as far as armor/ weapon allocation, and trying to keep the crits and tonnage true to Battletech. I have played MW4, and on the whole, found it very unsettling when you could mount weapon systems that, in the original paper and dice version, would have been illegal or just plain impossible.

As some of you have pointed out, the game, (Mechwarrior Online) is not out yet.

Here are what some of us Purists have stated...we want true crits used. Seeing weapons that take up more crits than the space allows seems like blasphemy to most of us long time players...yet games, (Mechwarrior 4 is the best example) place LBX20s in places that never were intended to hold one. Fixing weapon slots (Like Missile weapons only) is another bone of contention. Older games, like 2 and 3, didn't do this, and I can hope that MWO does the same, keep the crits (Whether for armor, weapons, or heat sinks) true to form. Sure, you might want to put a Gauss Rifle in the center torso, but the crits aren't there!

Just a question to the Powers That Be (From here on out, the PTB), can we expect true Mechs, based on the books?

[Odanan]

Yoseful Mallad, on 18 May 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

In another thread it was brought to my attention that in the Mech lab video with the Hunchback, its armor value is shown at 320 which is twice the armor value of the standard Hunchback in Table top. So... i went back and found the Table Top armor value of the Catipilt CPLT-K2 and guess what I found? In table top it is shown to have a armor value of 176. If you were to double that you would get 352... the exact number the CPLT-K2 has in the Mech Lab screen shots. It sure looks to me that while they seem to be using the ranges and damage numbers as close to Table Top rules as they can, they have on the other hand doubled the over all armor of the mech to give everyone a bit more staying power on the battlefield. And as I said in another thread, this would mean were it might take you 2 well place PPC shots to down a Jenner, (IF) this is the case with armor being doubled for all mech... that Jenner would now need to have up to 4 well placed PPC shots hit it to take it out.

Nice finding! If devs doubled the armor, I'm OK with that. But they will need to double all ammo per ton too. Otherwise, mechs not based in energy weapons will be in serious trouble.

[Spider]

Azantia, on 20 May 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

*sigh* More proof that public schooling is winning the war against educated, free-thinking people with basic math skills.

Ironic. One could substitute the above "free-thinking" and "math skills" with "alarmist" and "lack of people skills".


.......7,8,9,10

Edited by Spider, 20 May 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[Kudzu]

GaussDragon, on 20 May 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Like other people have pointed out (or have probably pointed out already) in MW4, lights didn't have much survivability because they got ALPHASTOMPED so quickly. This was a result of a high damage to armor ratio.

Not entirely true, most lights got stomped because of braindead point and click pinpoint targeting. Anyone with half a brain could hit every single one of their weapons in the exact same spot with minimal effort.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 20 May 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Not entirely true, most lights got stomped because of braindead point and click pinpoint targeting. Anyone with half a brain could hit every single one of their weapons in the exact same spot with minimal effort.

That would only be mostly with lasers; have you tried hitting the exact same spot on a light with ACs?

Also that won't work now as well since MWO has laser doing Damage over Time (DOT).

Still I like the laser travel time type (ie Mechwarrior 2)
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Vexgrave Lars]

Azantia,

Make peace that you spoke your mind. I understand and have made great effort to show them, but they shug, more than that I will not do.

If this is the model, which again I expect it is not, (http://mwomercs.com/...blog-6-mechlab/) (*section
How is Armour going to be handled?) but without absolute certainty, I will plan accordingly. I won't be driving a light or medium mech, ever. I will laser boat the hades out of my mech. No Ammo weapons, Just an engine armor and energy weapons. I'll still play, but the new "fair" will have changed.. and ammo limitations would then be significantly harder to cope with.

I would say "exponentially" but clearly there are too few who grasp that concept.

You know the number that is displayed in mech lab can be anything they Dev's want it to be. Thus even if you perceptibly assign 16 points per ton, in the lab you may actually be assigning 32 (a silent doubling if you will), and we would never truly know until after launch and testing (launch a duel with known armor values and compare by having someone shoot you with various weapons of known damage values, not hard to test, when a limb is blown off you know the outcome and integrity of the situation (IS of course also accounted)). Every point you'd assign could be worth two, not hard to disguise.

Bah.. I'm crazy, wrong, alarmist and paranoid.. why on earth would they do that?

See you under the reticle

Tomorrow is Monday and I am sure the Dev's will jump directly in here and tell us exactly that, we're crazy to be concerned, its a beta screen, not launch, and that this is a non issue.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 20 May 2012 - 08:43 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Kudzu, on 20 May 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Not entirely true, most lights got stomped because of braindead point and click pinpoint targeting. Anyone with half a brain could hit every single one of their weapons in the exact same spot with minimal effort.

That point doesn't work; heavier mechs were relatively more vulnerable to pinpoint accuracy because they were bigger, slower targets.

[Kudzu]

GaussDragon, on 20 May 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

That point doesn't work; heavier mechs were relatively more vulnerable to pinpoint accuracy because they were bigger, slower targets.

When your biggest defense is speed (and thus not being hit at all) having your enemies never miss is a much bigger detriment.

[Bullwerk]

The point isn't whether or not doubling armor values is good or bad, it may be either or given other changes and mechanics, or even if the armor values are even being changed at all. The point is there is a better and more effective way to display our concern.

The OP of this thread pointed out something he noticed and brought it to our attention (and since they watch these forums, the devs attention). The community as a group responded next in a rather poor manner. Responses were posted that flatly stated, with no true understanding of the WHOLE mechanics of the change, or the game, that this made the game unbalanced and nigh unplayable. The alarmist tone was palatable and all together disconcerting. Combined with the use of factual mathematics that was cited as proof that all of this was true it appears as if judgement has been passed.

Reading this very thread provides a great example why so many developers are so wary of showing the potential users anything of substance, anything more than art and pre-rendered pictures. The guys at PGI are doing a commendable job of keeping us in the loop and giving us true information, things to sink our teeth into and to get excited about. Their reward? Judgement, pitchforks, and torches all over something we more than likely don't understand.

I say all of this knowing full well that the math presented so far is perfectly CORRECT! But, I also know that all types of math can be perfectly correct and mean absolutely nothing because I was analyzing the wrong thing or was unaware of factors that invalidate what I was saying. Now I'm not in anyway saying math should never be used but we can at least be respectful in how we use it and cite up front our assumptions.

"My math shows that x y and z happens, like this ... when this change is made. Is that how it works in the current version of the game? How are the effects of this type of change being remedied"

VERSUS

"The math shows that x, y and z happens. This is all wrong and the game will be broken, and nobody will play. It is obvious that they only want to appease the masses with no brains! Oh, and don't tell me about all these other factors, I can't possibly account for them so I'm not going to admit that my math might not be valid, god you are all so dumb!"

Now I might be exaggerating for emphasis but this is basically the two side of the coin, the respectful way, and the anonymous intardwebs way. All that really needs to be done is for people to stay calm and be mature. There is no reason for any less than that in this community as BT fans have always been a cut above in my opinion. Logic, reason, balance and respect will get us all a lot farther.

Edited by Bullwerk, 20 May 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[SeDevri]

Azantia: if you have such a big problem with it then just don't play, or conversely **** and wait to see what the game looks like when the beta comes out. SH*T man, all i'm hearing from you is complaints, well if you think you can do better then go and make your own BT/MW game so you can play it with all the rest of your smartass elitist friends that you undoubtedly have. Yes we all want this game to be a success but being negative about everything they change isn't the way to help them. So tell you what, why don't you come up with a game system that will please you and post it in the suggestion forum then drop it and see what happens.

[Claw55]

Seeing how the Devs have been interacting with us, the intelligent, faithful community, don't you guys think its a bit early to mention the brainless crowd? Most of them don't even know about this game yet! And those who do are saying things like "YUNO HEDSHOT?" or "To slow lool!" or even "Hawken is better rofl".

Just saying, you honestly think that PGI, after all the excellent interactions they've had with us so far, have just drooped the whole thing for an audience that DOESN'T EXIST? I'm betting the reason why the devs haven't responded to this form is because they are trying to finish the Beta, so they can put the game in your hands and see what you want changed! So don't complain. Yet. Maybe later, but not yet!