310 replies to this topic

[Calvin Vakarian]

Prosperity Park, on 18 May 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

I don't get it...

If Mechs have double armor, then it takes 2x the shots to deal normal damage.
If Mechs have double armor, then it takes 2x the ammo to deal normal damage.
If Mechs carry double ammo, then they can deal normal damage.

How is this unfair to anyone?

If you double the armor, you double the ammo requirements -> so you double the ammo, too. That's equal. No unfairness.

This guy. This guy right here. He has in just five sentences, made each and every one of you look like idiots for trying to argue about this. How about we all just pipe down until we actually get a chance to play the game?

Edited by Calvin Vakarian, 20 May 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Claw55]

Calvin Vakarian, on 20 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

This guy. This guy right here. He has in just five sentences, made each and every one of you look like idiots for trying to argue about this. How about we all just pipe down until we actually get a chance to play the game?

Because:

[Belisarius1]

Has this even been confirmed?

[Hakija]

As much as I love the TT game, luck really does play a huge role that just isn't as heavy in a PC game. I don't have any fancy math, but the last time I played TT, I took a Devastator and and I believe a Warhammer against two entire lances of light mechs. A few lucky die roles for me (and some terrible ones for him) and 6 rounds later and I had crippled or destroyed them all.

I'll admit I think a 200% increase might be a bit much, but a slight increase in armor values could help prevent that type of nonsense from happening.

[Victor Morson]

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.

Alas, the war of the attention span to read a thread is lost, too. Simply put all the math in the world you have doesn't mean anything when based on Table Top phases as people have said indefinitely.

If armor is doubled in the final game (and is a decision) - which I doubt because they've been wanting to package CBT accurate variants with new 'mechs - there are a million reasons for it. Honestly the number itself does not mean anything. It's entirely arbitrary. If they allow an AC/20 to retain 20 damage per shot (rather than less damage to make a sum of shots over a 12 second period reach 20), for example, do you know how hilariously broken stock armor would be? Likewise, they could just as easily hide the value from the player; it could really have 240 to them, but reflect 120 to us. We do NOT know what "1 point" of armor will actually means until we get stats on weapons and see how they live up to those stats.

To clarify this for you: If a 'mech on table top had, say, 24 points of armor in a location and the same 'mech in MWO has 48, it's entirely possible the MWO 'mech is actually more frail than the TT one. Because, say, an AC/20 retains 20 damage a shot and fires 3 times in 10 seconds, versus once, that's 60 versus 20 potential damage. Or, an AC/20 might fire only once every 10 seconds and do 40 damage, because it's hard to hit with. Or maybe they change it to a stream firing mechanic that fires 5 damage rounds every second.

Again, as people have said, without context the number means nothing. I was guessing it was a press demo thing because of the exact 2x the OP noticed, as that would be an easy way to make the game easier to play: just take the standard armor values - which list like they do in CBT (despite again, in MWO, being ENTIRELY ARBITRARY) and run a doubler on them.

Also this ..

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

A very sad turn of events. Score one for the Mech Assault / mainstream gaming crowd. So many things right PGI, but a very solid core concept ruined.

Welcome back to the days of everyone load up a Heavy/Assault.

/Disappointed.

.. and the statement..

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

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.

.. DO NOT MESH.You are effectively screaming they noob'ed up the game if the armor values are higher, projecting all kinds of table top math all over the place all while saying you understand why they might need to buff armor.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, Azantia. If you admit they might need to buff armor to compensate for real time cycling of weapons, you can't possibly damn them for possibly buffing armor.

Again, I honestly suspect the armor buff was for the press demo due to the exact doubling. Odds are even if they DO double the armor, they'll make it transparent to the player in order to properly match TROs like they were considering doing.

But you are basically calling for blood on an issue that is entirely, 100% impossible to gauge without having way, way more information than we do while being extremely condescending and insulting to everyone else for not agreeing with you, going as far as to hilariously call yourself a "free thinker" because of it. Jesus H. Christ.

EDIT: Actually let's focus on the line from that above quote, "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." .. what? You're in one sentence declaring that it might need to be buffed yet and it doesn't need to be buffed, in the same line. Really??

PS: If all armor is doubled across the board and things are kept mostly CBT accurate, lights actually get an advantage as they are now twice as hard to kill AND harder to hit. I don't see why this of all things would make you think assaults would get favored. I'm concerned about tonnages in drops and if there will be enough people to take mediums from past MW experience, sure, but doubled armor across the board doesn't mean a thing.

If anything my bigger concern is this will greatly damage the role of long-range players as the majority of solid IS ranged weapons are ammo fed and I really don't want brawling to be the only viable tactic (as close range weapons tend to be lighter and deal much larger amounts of damage). If that was your sole concern from increased durability, it'd be worth discussing.. but definitely not worth declaring you are right because of the power of math!! and that everyone else is a fool.

Edited by Victor Morson, 20 May 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Kudzu]

Hakiyah, on 20 May 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

As much as I love the TT game, luck really does play a huge role that just isn't as heavy in a PC game. I don't have any fancy math, but the last time I played TT, I took a Devastator and and I believe a Warhammer against two entire lances of light mechs. A few lucky die roles for me (and some terrible ones for him) and 6 rounds later and I had crippled or destroyed them all.

I'll admit I think a 200% increase might be a bit much, but a slight increase in armor values could help prevent that type of nonsense from happening.

Tell a professional gambler that he makes his living based on luck... then get back to us.

[Stormguard14]

*sigh*....First post and I'm gonna have folks mad at me. Oh well....

I have just read through 12 pages of posts. Some made me scratch my head, and some made rather a lot of sense. All of them are totally worthless. Folks, we know next to nothing till the Beta comes around. All we have is speculation and assumtions. So chill, we'll find out how it plays when we find out.

Stormguard14 out...

[Kargush]

Calvin Vakarian, on 20 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

This guy. This guy right here. He has in just five sentences, made each and every one of you look like idiots for trying to argue about this. How about we all just pipe down until we actually get a chance to play the game?

Double the armour, double the ammo, don't double the weapon damage means twice the time to get a kill, which makes assault on assault duels lenghty slugging matches.

A long wait to move into range, a longer wait to get a kill.

Sure, lights will benefit, and it'll draw some attention away from the assaults, but come on. No need to cut your head off just to avoid having to shave.

Edited by kargush, 20 May 2012 - 11:59 PM.

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Pvt Dancer, on 19 May 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Tell me of a FPS game where accuracy was 100%, I dare you. I double dog dare you.

World War II Online aka Battlefield Europe.

[Naberius]

Man those cumulonimbus clouds look dangerously low don't they? Anyone remember being gifted with an IS mech clearly outmatched in BV, but sporting a good pilot and targeting computer? The look on a firemoth spamming player's face when most of his force gets one-shotted from across the table's worth it. This doesn't make for good gameplay in a computer game unless it's an RTS sort of game.

But, the heavies get more benefit from the armor! Yeah, too bad their rear armor is still flimsy and they'll still turn slower than the light and that's not taking into account previous damage, harassment tactics and hit and run. Combine all that with weapon divergance and that light might be a lot more threatening than you think.

Oh, but we could arbitrarily reduce accuracy! Except.. that doesn't work too well. You just pidgeon hole people into using the more accurate weapons. Or you completely screw it up like.. I want to say CS1.5 and your recoil pattern is predictable enough that you could accurately shoot by aiming differently.

Hm.. so lights are supposed to be able to stay competetive. But anything running a large weapon can and will one-shot them. I've had a Zeus with a significantly better pilot and Targeting Computer knocking Firemoths out like they were stationary. I've had enough Commandos blown out from under me to know just how flimsy they are, it's why I run the Jenner varient without the SRM and extra armor more often. Players by default will be more reliable than dice short of using weighted dice. So... why would I take a light over a heavy or an assault by TT Rules in MWO?

Finally in a less sardonic manner, this is a Beta, they change numbers regularly. We haven't had access to said Beta. When said Beta becomes public, we can all play and if we're smart and we don't happen to like it, we can write up well written posts saying, "Hey, this sucks could we change it please?" Seriously, settle down and buckle in until we know for sure.

[Banditman]

All this ridiculous wrangling over numbers from a Table Top game is just silly. This isn't a TT game. It's an online game, meant to appeal to a far wider audience than that old TT. Further, none of you have actually played the game! Until there is an open beta and people have the opportunity to actually, you know, PLAY the game, you're just theorycrafting based on a 20+ year old TT system.

The game needs to be FUN, and it needs to be fun for more than just the few people who like the TT.

Consider for a moment that all of the Fantasy MMO's on the planet owe their existance to Dungeons and Dragons. Can you imagine how dull those games would be if they adhered vehemently to the values and systems that existed in D&D?

[Calvin Vakarian]

kargush, on 20 May 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Double the armour, double the ammo, don't double the weapon damage means twice the time to get a kill, which makes assault on assault duels lenghty slugging matches.

A long wait to move into range, a longer wait to get a kill.

Sure, lights will benefit, and it'll draw some attention away from the assaults, but come on. No need to cut your head off just to avoid having to shave.

I fail to see how anything you just said could be seen as a bad thing. PGI has repeatedly said that they want to make matches take much longer than a round in a normal FPS. Doubling Armor and also doubling ammo is perfectly consistent with this. Your point about how Assault vs Assault taking forever also fails to take into account that if a lance has an Awesome sees that the other lance has an Atlas, unless they're a clanner, they're not going to just let their Awesome go 1v1 against the Atlas. Instead, every mech in that lance is going to focus on bringing that Atlas down because nobody is going to be stupid enough to just let a 100 ton assault mech have free reign of the battlefield. PGI has spent the last several weeks play testing this game, do you really think they haven't taken this into account?

Edited by Calvin Vakarian, 21 May 2012 - 05:18 AM.

[Sassori]

I'd let an awesome go 1 on 1 against an Atlas. The Awesome has significant armor and can place far more accurate shots than the Atlas's LRM-20.

The Atlas is a good mech, but it's not a dedicated fire platform like the Awesome is. If there's any sort of range, the Awesome should be fine with handling an Atlas. It's certainly not completely one sided till that AC-20 can come into play.

[MiG77]

kargush, on 20 May 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

Double the armour, double the ammo, don't double the weapon damage means twice the time to get a kill, which makes assault on assault duels lenghty slugging matches.

A long wait to move into range, a longer wait to get a kill.

Sure, lights will benefit, and it'll draw some attention away from the assaults, but come on. No need to cut your head off just to avoid having to shave.

Not true if all weapons also fire twice as fast... we end exactly as in in TT.

IE laser can fire sigle, double or 20 times in 10sec period but if relative damage done in that 10s period stays same all is equal to TT.

Edited by MiG77, 21 May 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[Frantic Pryde]

I really hope they didn't double the armor. In my experience, Lights need to be able to deal their damage quickly and then disappear before heavier mechs can land their hits. If all the armor is doubled I think the lighter mechs will suffer. The commando for example, has 9 armor in the CT, doubled it has 18... so an AC20 crits it either way, but the commando has to work twice as hard to crit the heavier mech.

That said, I don't have all the details and I have said on numerous occasions that I have faith in the devs based on the direction they have taken so far and the things they said. So lets wait and see what happens and save all the doom and gloom until then

[Dantiger]

Kudzu, on 20 May 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Tell a professional gambler that he makes his living based on luck... then get back to us.

"luck" is used when there is to much variables to calculate
in a PC game is easier to calculate those variables than in the TT

but lets suppose... if the laser damage varies depending of the air density, then what is better ? calculate the air density or make a roll to give a random value to the variable ?

BUT that doesn't mean that everything is luck... you only should work harder to not get f*** by those variables

Edited by Dantiger, 21 May 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Grokmoo]

I think the vast majority of people in this thread seem to be totally missing the point arguing about minutiae of the rules.

Most likely I think, is that armor values have been doubled, and weapon firing rates have also been roughly doubled. If you watch the videos, none of the weapons seem to have anything close to 10 second cycle time.

This situation will lead to mechs surviving fire for exactly the same length of time as they do in Tabletop rules. However, this is not tabletop rules. I see this actually favoring lights, as pilots will not be able to concentrate as much damage into a 1 or 2 second timeframe. This will make popping in and out of cover as a light more survivable.

[Star Captain Obvious Kerensky]

Why is this even a point of discussion? Watch this MWO gameplay videos. The lasers are clearly pinpoint accurate. Yes they deal damage over time, but its not particularly hard to hold them in position.

If MWO had CBT armor/weapon values a handful of medium lasers would be able to core most mechs in a single alpha. Even at Atlas would be down after 2 or 3 strikes.

[Sassori]

There's always variables. If everyone is dealing with the same variables then it is simply a factor to keep in mind. It doesn't make anything necessarily better or worse.

Also: Direct fire weapons should all have the same accuracy, same goes for indirect. There shouldn't be a situation to pick one or the other for completely tangible benefits of better accuracy imho. Pulse lasers are more accurate because they are 'spray and pray' weapons. Chances are one of the lasers is going to hit in the burst.

A large laser should be just as accurate as an AC-10 for example, I'm still kind of bummed that it's point and click accuracy though. Kind of breaks immersion and makes things to easy, which messes with a bunch of other factors until by the time all is sad and done, we're not actually playing mechwarrior. We're playing a FPS shooter with mechwarrior skin.

[MiG77]

Christopher Dayson, on 21 May 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

A large laser should be just as accurate as an AC-10 for example, I'm still kind of bummed that it's point and click accuracy though. Kind of breaks immersion and makes things to easy, which messes with a bunch of other factors until by the time all is sad and done, we're not actually playing mechwarrior. We're playing a FPS shooter with mechwarrior skin.

I would say we are playing exactly Mechwarrior (meaning computer games that are based on battletech), not TT.