310 replies to this topic

[Azantia]

gauge, on 18 May 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Ah ha! I do see what you mean by that! Though I think it also moves into territory where we are trying to equate the luck of dice rolls in the TT to player skill in MWO, which is tougher to math out.

In my mind though, that just shows that superior tactics are important to MWO, as you are less likely to 'just get lucky' and succeed.
But that all is just a matter of opinion, not math. Thank you for putting up with me until I understood though, I really do appreciate it.

The math doesnt lie.

Tabletop with dice, or real time in game.

I have to hit you 3.01 times (with a full weapons cycle mind you) for every time you hit me (with a full weapons cycle) in the base values

I have to hit you 4.01 times for every time you hit me with doubled values.

edit : advantage goes to heavier mechs.

Edited by Azantia, 18 May 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[Zelekin]

One last post by me as food for thought before i'm off.

It seems that rather than TT armor vs more armor, it could be seen as those wanting "one shots" (a light mech being instantly destroyed by a heavier shot) in the game and those not wanting them in the game, which seems more game likes and opinions than balance.

They can happen in tabletop, all though there is RNG to make sure it is not an always occurring thing, and in mechwarrior, having some form of balance similiar to the RNG and other factors is difficult, hence the increased armor as one solution the devs are going through.

Edited by Zelekin, 18 May 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[Gauge]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 11:45 PM, said:

The math doesnt lie.

Tabletop with dice, or real time in game.

I have to hit you 3.01 times (with a full weapons cycle mind you) for every time you hit me (with a full weapons cycle) in the base values

I have to hit you 4.01 times for every time you hit me with doubled values.

edit : advantage goes to heavier mechs.

...Well, I don't know what to say. I just lost a debate about if Heavies and Assaults will be OP to you, and I also just lost a debate with Christopher Dayson about if Lights will be OP, so I'm clearly on shaky footing here. I think I'm going to bow out for now. I have an understanding, which is what I came here for.

EDIT: Of course meaning I have an understanding of why this is upsetting and possibly a game changer.

Edited by gauge, 18 May 2012 - 11:54 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Zakatak, on 18 May 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Mechwarrior 4 has tripled armor values, and I have no complaints concerning time-to-kill in that game. Considering that we only get one life, I think having doubled armor values is perfectly fine. I don't want matches to last 5 minutes.

Mechwarrior 4 armor values were retarded.....Double armor values are more then enough.

[Evex]

Let me add a bit of perspective on this. Now you say that the armor values have been doubled, but we have no physical way of knowing this. You also say that ammo has been doubled, and you have no way of knowing this again. I've watched the mechlab video quiet a bit, and I actually paused it to see what the ammo for an AC/5 was. AC/5 ammo is still 20 rounds. You also have to consider the model of the machine being piloted, assuming its a normal hunchback HBK-4G then the AC/20 has two tons of ammunition which is 10 rounds.

Now lets assume that the armor value has been doubled. This could of been done for any number of given reasons, which have been stated in the thread before. You have more accurate fire, and the weapons don't work like there table top counterparts. I'm assuming laser damage was direct damage to a mech in the table top, when a mech was hit. In MW:O its all ready been stated that beam weapons do damage over time. Lets assume this means a medium laser deals five continues damage over time the beam is active. How long would it take say a catapult, which is equipped with four medium lasers, to go through the armor of say for example a cicada in normal TT damage rules in that matter of time? You also have to factor in that we as players have control where those 4x medium lasers are pointed at. A player who can track the mech they are attacking, will be able to keep those four medium lasers trained on the center torso. Assuming that weapon convergence isn't lost if the mouse isn't moved to quickly, and convergence is lost if the mouse is moved to quickly off a target. For the most part the double armor is more likely a change for a mechs survivability, based on changes made to how weapons and other mechanics work.

[Sassori]

gauge, on 18 May 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

...Well, I don't know what to say. I just lost a debate about if Heavies and Assaults will be OP to you, and I also just lost a debate with Christopher Dayson about if Lights will be OP, so I'm clearly on shaky footing here. I think I'm going to bow out for now. I have an understanding, which is what I came here for.

EDIT: Of course meaning I have an understanding of why this is upsetting and possibly a game changer.

LOL Sorry about that, it was two different situations. My situation was what happens when the Light immediately goes for the back armor (Which it should, imho, lights should not be trying to brawl with things bigger than they are face to face), and for Azantia's example, he was talking a face to face brawl. Both ways show how doubling armor has negative effects on the game. Now as to which one will end up being /more/ negative, that I cannot say. All I know is that a light shouldn't be taking multiple ppc shots like that anymore than an atlas should be taking 10 just to get through the armor on the center torso.

[Bullwerk]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Okay. You guys want a game like Mechwarrior 4 ? Be my guest.

Doubled Armor Values takes us dangerously close to the territory of only Heavy and Assaults.
Doubled Ammo Values even closer.

These factors made many of the different mechwarrior leagues a "rush" fest....

I take it you guys liked the way Mechwarrior 4 played? : Let me load up a mech with more weaponry than it could take (cause of severely altered mech construction rules and proceed to rush the spawn over and over...

Thats the type of game you think battletech/mechwarrior is supposed to be?

Cause last I checked, if you rushed a team in battletech (even with the "2d6 dice rolls") you would be taken out pretty quick.
Hell if your WHOLE team rushed another team, you would most likely lose...

Battletech was the last true venue which was untarnished by the Mainsteam, sure companies attempted it (Wizkids, Microsoft) but luckly they failed. Starting to wonder if MWO is really going to be good for the Battletech brand.

But if the above is Battletech/Mechwarrior to you, then who am I to argue?

And its a great tactic to try and downplay my knowledge by suggesting that I havent played Tabletop battletech for "more than 5 minutes" I have played 20 years of tabletop battletech. But that high-nosed behavior is common-place among the Robinson Rangers these days. I guess I should expect no different from you in the forums.

The Dice is a way (albeit a bad one) of trying to simulate reality in the Tabletop game (yep thats right it works both ways, go figure.) Armor values are not broken, dice or no dice and my opinion is that it doesnt need to change. But PGI owns the game, so doesnt really matter does it? Good thing my opinions are just that : my own, and Im allowed to be disappointed.

The last thing I want is a game like MW4, that game still leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me cringe when I boot it up. The game was horribly balanced in every conceivable way. Mindlessly upping stats without thought for the repercussions (or worse doing it while fully aware of the effects) is not the way to create a dun and engaging game that involves strategy. However that is in no way the same thing as taking the time to bring the mechanics of TT to the game and then playing it (for months) and tweaking values to get the right feel, the feel that we all expect (or at least many of us would expect) when piloting a mech.

Upping the armor values, upping the ammo quantities are not solely what made MW4 the abomination that it is. It took a lot of mistakes (or a lot of work) to make that game that bad. I for one have been encouraged by how PGI has developed this game so far and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with their changes. Granted this is easier for me because I understand some underlying principles of probability and have years of experience playing games based upon dice rolls.

In short I feel it is just too damned early to be so pessimistic about a game we haven't even gotten our hands on yet. Some sparse information in a video and screenshots during development, with absolutely no context or explanation, means squat diddly. When the game is released and it is everything you feared I will be the first to demonize the devs at PGI with you. I will writhe in agony at once again being deprived of the Mech goodness I feel we all deserve after so long. Alas, I am all too well aware that the day for that might come given the history of this franchise but it is not today.

This particular topic showcases the single biggest problem I have with this community at times, it's propensity for doom, for decrying the rape and pillage of our beloved canon, rules, lore, and passion over nothing more than incomplete information. Go ahead, be concerned about the doubling of armor, be concerned about how lasers do damage, be concerned about any number of issues but lets try to address those concerns as the mature people we are. Yelling the "sky is falling" and tossing around dubious math to prove it helps no one, least of all the devs who we are relying upon to get it right. Have a concern? Voice it maturely and respectfully, if you do I'm damned near 99% sure your concern will be received with much more thoughtful and civil discourse and maybe even some developer insight.

[Riptor]

Wow... theres alot of BS going around in this thread.

People claiming that a 1:1 ratio of armor values from the TT would not benefit the heavy and assault mechs at all?

Have you guys even thought about survivability of light mechs a tiny bit?

I can core a commando with a single Gauss shot, two ppc shots or three large lasers. It is compared to the TT INCREDIBLY EASY to hit an enemy mech no matter the speed or height in this game.

If armor values where to be taken 1 : 1 heavys and assaults wouldnt have "an advantage"

They would be the be all end all of the entire friggin game.

Upping the armor values to double for everything atleast allows the light mechs to stay longer in the game and do what they are suposed to do.

Scout, backstab, harrass. Wich each of them they could not do if the enemy only needed so much as sneeze at them to take them out.

I like the most that people only work with armor and damage values but totaly ignore stuff like teamwork, eventual modules, leveled mechs and pilots, electronic equipment ETC ETC ETC.

There are so many more variables in this game then armor and damage but hey... lets just ignore them shall we?

The idea that 1 : 1 ratio armor would somehow make it allllllright and help the lights and mediums is hilarious

I can hit a Jenner on full speed while running myselfe in an atlas better then any TT 4/5 pilot ever could period.

But if you want this game to solely exist of heavy and assaults be my guest and demand a 1 : 1 ratio. Have games be over in 4 minutes.. its not like this game is suposed to be fun for.. oh i dont know.. EVERYONE?

Maybe the die hard fans should kiss the illusion goodbye that this game was made for them and only for them.

Oh and if you take a light mech and go 1 against 1 with an assault.. all the while standing infront of him and NOT using the PROs of being a light (speed and maneuverability) to your advantage...

Well then you deserve to be reduced to a smoldering piece of metall no matter how much armor you got.

Edited by Riptor, 19 May 2012 - 12:39 AM.

[Azantia]

Okay
This is assuming a straight doubling of internal and external armor values, with maximum external armor. Note that in all cases, the number of weapons that can be mounted on each chassis will not change, so damage values are not taken into consideration. Likewise we do not consider hit location, terrain, or any other variable as those are difficult to quantify and would have taken alot more information, alot more assumptions and would be lots of raw data to pour over.

My point is the doubling of armor values HEAVILY favors Heavy and Assault mechs and as such, there will be an unhealthy number of them, which will lead to balance issues / take us back to being closer to mechwarrior 4, which I personally do not want to see.


Base Values

Mech Wt - Internal Armor - External Armor - Total
20 Tons - 33 - 69 - 102
25 Tons - 43 - 89 - 132
30 Tons - 51 - 105 - 156
35 Tons - 58 - 119 - 177
40 Tons - 67 - 137 - 204
45 Tons - 75 - 153 - 228
50 Tons - 83 - 169 - 252
55 Tons - 91 - 185 - 276
60 Tons - 99 - 201 - 300
65 Tons - 104 - 211 - 315
70 Tons - 107 - 217 - 324
75 Tons - 114 - 231 - 345
80 Tons - 122 - 247 - 369
85 Tons - 130 - 263 - 393
90 Tons - 138 - 279 - 417
95 Tons - 145 - 293 - 438
100 Tons - 152 - 307 - 459

Average Armor by Weight Class
Light : 141.75
Medium : 240 (69.3% higher than light)
Heavy : 321 (126.4% higher than light, 33.7% higher than medium)
Assault : 415.2 (192.9% higher than light, 73% higher than medium, 29.3% higher than heavy)

Average Net Gain by Weight Class (Over previous weight class)
Light : 0
Medium : 98.25
Heavy : 179.25 / 81 (82.4% higher gain over mediums vs lights)
Assault : 273.45 / 175.2 / 94.2 (178.3% gain over mediums vs lights, 116% gain over mediums vs heavy)


Doubled Values

20 Tons - 66 - 138 - 204
25 Tons -86 - 178 - 264
30 Tons - 102 - 210 - 312
35 Tons - 116 - 238 - 354
40 Tons - 134 - 274 - 408
45 Tons - 150 - 306 - 456
50 Tons - 166 - 338 - 504
55 Tons - 182 - 370 - 552
60 Tons - 198 - 402 - 600
65 Tons - 208 - 422 - 630
70 Tons - 214 - 434 - 648
75 Tons - 228 - 462 - 690
80 Tons - 244 - 498 - 738
85 Tons - 260 - 526 - 786
90 Tons - 276 - 558 - 834
95 Tons - 290 - 586 - 876
100 Tons - 304 - 614 - 918


Average Armor by Weight Class
Light = 283.5
Medium = 480
Heavy = 642
Assault = 830.4

Percentages will be the same, see above post

Average Net Gain by Weight Class (Over previous weight classes)
Light =
Medium = 196.5
Heavy = 358.5 / 162
Assault = 546.9 / 250.4 / 188.4

High Weight in Class comparison (did not do them all, just Light vs M/H/A)

35 Ton vs. 55 Tons

35 Tons - 58 - 119 = 177
55 Tons - 91 - 185 = 276

Difference = 99

Doubled

35 Tons - 116 - 238 = 354
55 Tons - 182 - 370 = 552

35 Ton gain : 177
55 Ton gain : 276
Difference = 198 or 55.9% higher return from doubling armor for the 55 tonner

35 Tons vs. 75 Tons

35 Tons - 58 - 119 = 177
75 Tons - 114 - 231= 345

Difference = 168

Doubled

35 Tons - 116 - 238 = 354
75 Tons - 228 - 462 = 690

Gain
35 Tons = 177
75 Tons = 345

Difference = 336 or 94.9% higher return for doubling armor for the 75 tonner

35 Ton vs. 100 Ton

35 Tons - 58 - 119 = 177
100 Tons - 152 - 307 = 459

Difference = 282

Doubled

35 Tons - 116 - 238 = 354
100 Tons - 304 - 614 = 918

Difference = 564 or 159.3% higher return for doubling armor for the 100 tonner


Okay bullwerk, im all ears, or in this case, eyes....really interested to see what you have to say about this one.

Edited by Azantia, 19 May 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

I can't see a poll in this topic. I would gladly vote for the original armor values.
And I fully agree with Azantia on this topic. 16 PPCs to Core the Atlas is madness. And be sure you'll have to fire twice to trice said 16 PPCs at that Atlas, as not all of them are going to hit exactly CT and will spread around other hit boxes.

As I see it, all 'political' battles that change anything in the Inner Sphere or bring profit to factions should be played fair, with original values. Still, I can't see any harm if there would be some matches 'for fun', where there could be enabled an option of double armor if both sides fully agree.. But it's still kind of perverse)

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 19 May 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[AimlessSpectre]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

It favors heavies and assaults because they mount more weaponry and more armor. More weaponry = more damage per second. when we are talking about math, the higher the BASE number, the more you get when DOUBLED. (I know simple right?)

so when they get "more" from being doubled, and can more "more" weaponry, which means "more" dps, it means they get 2 times the advantage

look at it like this :

I have 100 base armor and have a max damage capacity per turn of, say 25
you have 250 base armor and have a max damage capacity per turn of, say 40

when doubled, I receive 100 armor
when doubled, you receive 250 armor

who gets more from being doubled?

A higher net advantage goes to the Heavy/Assault mechs, hence, why they will in theory be used more....

I feel you're misrepresenting this a little. The benefit is still even in a relative sense; in both cases it would take the opponent twice as many shots to kill the other, in either case the heavy wins but that should be for obvious reasons, the light is merely taking the shots in this example. If anything, the only benefit that heavies get from this is more time to capitalize on mistakes by the lighter pilot, but likewise the lighter pilot has twice as many mistake available.

There is no benefit to having purely higher values as long as the values are consitant relative to one another. In regards to getting more out of it, you could halve your armor to 'normal' values to get twice as many weapons, but then you still have half as much armor as another mech of the same type and you'll go down twice as fast, so your doubled weaponry will only come into play half as long as normal. Player skill plays into this, but there are not magic "free tons" here, its still a trade off; defense vs offense, just as it would be if you halved normal armor values in the table-top.

This seems to just be rebalancing to accomidate the actuallity of real-time play and the ease with which they could adjust this means it shouldn't be an issue in the end anyway. Have a little faith and worry when there's a problem you can verify. Come beta there very well may be.

Edited by AimlessSpectre, 19 May 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[UncleKulikov]

Azantia, on 19 May 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Okay, lets see the ignorance for these values.

This is assuming a straight doubling of internal and external armor values. Note that in all cases, the number of weapons that can be mounted on each chassis will not change, so damage values are not taken into consideration. Likewise we do not consider hit location, terrain, or any other variable as those are difficult to quantify and would have taken alot more information, alot more assumptions and would be lots of raw data to pour over.

My point is the doubling of armor values HEAVILY favors Heavy and Assault mechs and as such, there will be an unhealthy number of them, which will lead to balance issues / take us back to being closer to mechwarrior 4, which I personally do not want to see.

You know what you never assume, and never mention?
Any potential adjustment to damage output. What if it were doubled to match? Then no balance would have changed, save for precision tweaking that could be done with laser output over time.

[Azantia]

AimlessSpectre, on 19 May 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

I feel you're misrepresenting this a little. The benefit is still even in a relative sense; in both cases it would take the opponent twice as many shots to kill the other, in either case the heavy wins but that should be for obvious reasons, the light is merely taking the shots in this example. If anything, the only benefit that heavies get from this is more time to capitalize on mistakes by the lighter pilot, but likewise the lighter pilot has twice as many mistake available.

There is no benefit to having purely higher values as long as the values are consitant relative to one another. In regards to getting more out of it, you could halve your armor to 'normal' values to get twice as many weapons, but then you still have half as much armor as another mech of the same type and you'll go down twice as fast, so your doubled weaponry will only come into play half as long as normal. Player skill plays into this, but there are not magic "free tons" here, its still a trade off; defense vs offense, just as it would be if you halved normal armor values in the table-top.

This seems to just be rebalancing to accomidate the actuallity of real-time play and the ease with which they could adjust this means it shouldn't be an issue in the end anyway. Have a little faith and worry when there's a problem you can verify. Come beta there very well may be.

The benefit is not even. If you think that, then im not sure what to tell you. Look at the math posted above.

UncleKulikov, on 19 May 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

You know what you never assume, and never mention?
Any potential adjustment to damage output. What if it were doubled to match? Then no balance would have changed, save for precision tweaking that could be done with laser output over time.

Logically, this would not make any sense??

[Vexgrave Lars]

Wow..normally don't need to say it so simply, but Azantia is really onto something with this. The greatest benefit simply goes to the base mech (TRO) with more points to be doubled (MWO).

If weapon damages are a constant and TT consistent, you could beat on an Atlas all freaking day with a lone Jenner and the "role warfare, not weight warfare" image thus far advertised is kind farcical. Essentially the Lights would need 2.55x Armor, Mediums 2.20, Heavy 2.0 and Assault 1.75X armor to balance them, assuming everything else is numerically TT and consistent, which not sure we know for certain... just estimating. Flat across the board doubling of armor is not properly mathematically weighted.

Tragic if true at launch.

Personal Note* as a Recon Driver.. this blows!

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 19 May 2012 - 01:33 AM.

[WiCkEd]

Seemed like their overall intentions were to make this game different from the games of the past by forcing situations where you do not have mile long shooting lines nor do you have torso-twist, endless circle jerks. Making the mechs appropriately soft seems as though it would force people to put more tactical thought into their manuevers. I hope it was just for testing purposes.

[Gauge]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Wow..normally don't need to say it so simply, but Azantia is really onto something with this. The greatest benefit simply goes to the base mech (TRO) with more points to be doubled (MWO).

If weapon damages are a constant and TT consistent, you could beat on an Atlas all freaking day with a lone Jenner and the "role warfare, not weight warfare" image thus far advertised is kind farcical. Essentially the Lights would need 2.55x Armor, Mediums 2.20, Heavy 2.0 and Assault 1.75X armor to balance them, assuming everything else is numerically TT and consistent, which not sure we know for certain... just estimating. Flat across the board doubling of armor is not properly mathematically weighted.

Tragic if true at launch.

Personal Note* as a Recon Driver.. this blows!

Actually, you could only beat on an Atlas for twice as long. The same is true for the Jenner though.

I still think the doubling is a much better solution than coming up with arbitrary values for how much to increase armor by to try and keep it balanced though. It may change the feel of the fights, sure, but I still feel it may be a better solution than others, depending on why it is the way it is.

[neodym]

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.


Here was my response to the original thread, as Yousful refers to :

If they increase armor in any-way shape or form, it will break the balance of the weapons that have been established and that means it will be just like Mechwarrior 4, which means "more arcade-like", which is C-R-A-P.

We (the 1st Blackburn's Raiders) have been playing Mektek's free release of mechwarrior 4, with mech variants based on TRO/tabletop values for armor and speed (obviously cant change weapon systems) and even though the internal armor is still a little higher than it needs to be, it makes the game much much more fun, and more tactical. It also INCREASES the effectiveness of speed and mobility and makes heavy and assault mechs much more vulnerable in general.

If they change the armor values to an attempt to "help" those pilots who do things like stand still, or rush into enemy fire, then my prediction is they will lose a high percentage of the most dedicated fan base within a matter of months. (Someone asked me why : Because they will realize it is mechwarrior 4 all-over again. We dont want another horrible mutation like Mechwarrior 4.) Without the dedicated fan base, its only a matter of time before this "new influx" of community players finds the "next new shiny" game to play.

Its important that the new community players see and play the game that the old time players fell in love with. Not some altered, rainbow / arcade like mutation of the original. There is NOTHING wrong with the original values. Yes, you take a few good hits, you are down to internals. Welcome to life as a Mechwarrior.

If I have to hit a light or medium mech 5 to 6 times with a PPC to penetrate their extrernal armor, you wont see me playing for long.

Keep in mind a stock atlas (which is one of the most heavily armored mechs for the timeframe) can take 4.7 PPC blasts to the Center Torso before they go internal. it takes 8 PPC blasts in the CT to take it down completely (47 CT Armor, 31 Internal = 78). I expect that when a Jenner takes a PPC blast ANYWHERE, its down to internals, or damned close to it. Speed is its defense, not armor.

(Update : If the Armor Values are DOUBLED, It will take 16 PPC blasts (OR 8 AC/20 rounds!!!!!!) to the center torso to kill an Atlas or any other 100 Ton mech, as they can have the same armor values. Think of it this way : 11 Clan ER PPC Blasts. That means a Masakari Prime could Alpha Strike the Atlas TWICE in the CT and it will still be running around. That is completely F'ing stupid to anyone who has any knowledge of the battletech universe, Atlas, or no Atlas.
For you medium laser boaters out there, it will take you 32 Medium Laser hits to kill an Atlas.)

The Atlas is approximately 285% heavier than the Jenner

so by proxy of weight alone (Which in the Btech universe tends to loosely base a chassis' overall combat endurance on)
the Jenner should take approximately 2.8 PPC blasts (fully armored) before it goes down. Or in game terms, should have somewhere close to the range of 28 total armor (external and internal).

(UPDATE : Using the same standard as above : the Jenner would have 56 total armor/internal points in the CT, which means it could ALMOST (4 points away) survive an Alpha Strike from a Masakari Prime, and could survive an Alpha Strike and a Half from an Awesome. Likewise it Could survive 2 AC/20 hits to the CT, something most 50 to 60 ton mechs cant accomplish in Lore/TT.)

Lets look at the maximum armor allowance for a 35 ton mech

119 external armor or 7.5 tons.
9 Max H
22 max CT
16 Max RT/LT/RL/LL
12 Max RA/LA

keep in mind you have to split youre CT/RT/LT armor into front and rear. so, here is my conclusion

Shocker :
you can have 17 center torso armor, 5 rear, and *GASP* added with the internal armor (11) you get 28.

you are welcome
- Az

I agree

[Pvt Dancer]

Prosperity Park, on 18 May 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

If we had normal armor and ammo, who's gonna play the light class in a Mech Sim if you run that significant of a 1-shot death risk? It's gonna be few.
Doubling the armor and ammo doubles the length of the fight, and doubles the amount of time you get to pilot your Mech in a match. Trust me - if they stuck with TRO values, then we'd be experiencing 5->10 minute battles, not 20->30 minute fights. TRO battles are very, very swift.

I like the idea of having TRO values as an Optional Server Mode, however. That would be awesome.

That last line is money, I have said the same thing on another thread.

But the rest of it, let me point it out like this. Double the armor, double the ammo, double the shots it takes to kill a light. Even with armored doubled, a CT shot will still cripple a light, as will a leg shot with an AC 20.

The Jenner and Commando? They both only have 4 tons of armor, 64 points spread out to 11 locations is 5-6pts per location. Double that to 10, and 20pts from that AC 20 still tear through it. But yeah, no damage transfer means that I hit that Jenner in the arm with it's 4pts of armor (doubled to 8pts) and 6pts of Internal structure means that last 6pts of damage is wasted instead of going to the torso armor.

But as stated above, that Heavy and Assault, who have a max of 17-19pts of rear armor is now doubled to 30-40pts. Your Jenner does 28pts of damage in a shot. Now /you/ have to spend twice as long on that guys back just to get through the armor.

Displacer, on 18 May 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

We don't know the damage per second of the weapons yet, so it is hard see how the change in armor values affect things.

ACs and missles due full damage per recycle time (if all missiles hit) and energy weapons have 1.5-3 second DoT. So a Medium Laser is probably 2.5 damage per second for 2 seconds, assuming a small laser is 1.5 and a large laser is 3 seconds respectivily.

Riptor, on 19 May 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Have you guys even thought about survivability of light mechs a tiny bit?

Upping the armor values to double for everything atleast allows the light mechs to stay longer in the game and do what they are suposed to do.

No, not at all. What keeps Lights in the game is the lack of damage transfer. But it also means that you have to judge if your going to waste that AC 20 shot on a light because it may not have 20pts of armor or IS in a single location, making it a waste of ammo if you hit a torso that has nothing in it.

Right now we have to assume that the hit locations are not going to be transparent once they are destroyed, because damage will not transfer. The problem is, the bigger the mech, the more IS it can have and thus more armor it can have. That base Atlas is going to have 94pts of Front CT armor and 28 rear CT armor. Anyone with half a brain will split that up better so it is 80/40 or 70/50, which takes lights out of the game offensivily. This then means in a non-'critical' location (you will not die if it is destroyed), you hit him there and the damage disappears because there is no transfer, making that Atlas even /harder/ to take out.

The problem is, double armor actually takes Lights out of the game because now they can only hurt other Lights. To make them balanced, they have to be up-gunned, which defeats the point of doubling the armor. What the heck is that 20 ton mech going to do that is only armed with a medium laser (Wasp, Locust, Stinger), or a non-Unseen mech like the Spider or Cicada with 2 medium lasers? Who are they really going to hurt as your using those base mechs?

It also messes with actual construction. Lets say there is a base mech that is /known/ for it's subpar armor but is overgunned for it's size. Well, that was the balance of the mech, it was a glass hammer, because now it is going to survive twice as long as it normaly would have. If you /do/ strip stuff for more armor, your effectivily doubling the tonnage...and armor can be taken in half ton allotments. There are alot of good mechs out there now that were near max armor but had space for a ton or two, making them even tougher. Better hope they don't have the stock Charger now as a base mech to grind for those variants!

[Bullwerk]

Azantia, on 19 May 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Okay
This is assuming a straight doubling of internal and external armor values, with maximum external armor. Note that in all cases, the number of weapons that can be mounted on each chassis will not change, so damage values are not taken into consideration. Likewise we do not consider hit location, terrain, or any other variable as those are difficult to quantify and would have taken alot more information, alot more assumptions and would be lots of raw data to pour over.

My point is the doubling of armor values HEAVILY favors Heavy and Assault mechs and as such, there will be an unhealthy number of them, which will lead to balance issues / take us back to being closer to mechwarrior 4, which I personally do not want to see.


[SNIP]

Okay bullwerk, im all ears, or in this case, eyes....really interested to see what you have to say about this one.

Azantia,

You are still layering assumption, on top of conjecture, and adding a dab of hysteria to the mix just for good measure.

Once again there is nothing wrong with the math you have presented but the math doesn't present everything. We have no idea what changes have been made in addition. We have no idea if this change is meant for release. Hell, we have no idea if this change even means what it is assumed to mean (there goes that assumption thing again).

I use mathematics to prove and disprove all kinds of wonderful things in my line of work and experience has taught me again and again that things are never as simple as you like them to be. Using first principles to design things (analogous to your type of analysis) works but only if you assume a great many things and only works for simple systems. What is being designed here is not a simple system and requires much greater investigation to be proven wrong or right.

You state "I have to hit you 3.01 times (with a full weapons cycle mind you) for every time you hit me (with a full weapons cycle) in the base values. I have to hit you 4.01 times for every time you hit me with doubled values." Now that may well be true (in fact your math once again is right) but you have no way of knowing what other factors are involved that might mitigate this change. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head. For arguments sake lets just look at the most obvious.

Nimbler mech is more nimble - Do the effects of speed and maneuverability as they are modeled in this game make the bigger mech getting a 1 to 4 hit ratio extremely difficult? How does weapon convergence, movement effects, torso twist, arm slew, turning radius, and target acquisition effect the outcome? We don't know!

Well damn, I need to hit you once or more times for every 4 hits you get on me and god darn it if you won't sit still and let me shoot you!

Oh damn, while I'm trying to shoot you your lance buddies behind the hill lobbed 4 salvos of LRM 20s at me.

Screw it, the last member of your lance just flanked me and slammed an AC-20 slug and some laser fire into my rear center torso, now I have to wait 10 minutes for the match to end...

How is all that reflected in your math? How are any of the numerous scenarios people playing the game might have experienced so far factored in to make the comparison truly indicative of the state of play? Theoretical arguments are just that a theory. Both side of this argument are based upon theories for which we have no definitive proof. Hell even all your math only holds up as much as it does if we are dumb enough to engage 1 on 1, head to head a situation we are not likely be encouraging in a team based combat simulation.

The essence of all of it is that you can write as much math as you want but it means nothing at this point. You are trying to prove that the game is broken before it is even released. You are stating that because of a little math and a lot of assumptions you have tumbled on to something that the developers and their testers have not. Obviously their knowledge of the code, mechanics, and actual play data couldn't possibly have shown that what ever solution they have devised for armor might be the right one. I find that to be an appalling example of hubris.

I again make no claims that the devs will get it right, I make no claims that doubling of armor might not break the game, I make no claims that any of my thoughts on why this change might be made are in any way true. What I do claim is that you can not claim that you are right until we see the proof. As they say the proof is indeed in the pudding and I'm still of the mind that since I have yet to taste the pudding, it is likely tasty as not.

I still contend that our collective concerns about this can be much better represented to the community and the developers if we skim the panic and doom off the top and pose the question calmly and maturely. Why must what we don't understand be bad? Are we really that eager to find the boogey man of MWO? To rob ourselves of the opportunity to enjoy this game? Every day I see more and more discontent, fear, hysteria, and rudeness on these forums. It's as if the community is so afraid that this will not be the golden messiah of MW/BT games that we are driven to condemn it, stone it, and be done with it before we have the chance to be disappointed. Yet that mentality leaves you just as disappointed in the end!

Edited by Bullwerk, 19 May 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Vexgrave Lars]

gauge, on 19 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Actually, you could only beat on an Atlas for twice as long. The same is true for the Jenner though.

I still think the doubling is a much better solution than coming up with arbitrary values for how much to increase armor by to try and keep it balanced though. It may change the feel of the fights, sure, but I still feel it may be a better solution than others, depending on why it is the way it is.

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.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 19 May 2012 - 02:55 AM.