310 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 18 May 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[Spheroid]

I am still disgesting my thoughts on this matter. In terms of mechs closing and engaging other mechs, reduced lethality will mean knife fighting range will nearly always occur.

At such range what is the role of the AC-5, PPC and large laser? Perhaps crowded 12 on 12 maps means there will always be some target of opportunity that will be shot at while closing.

Is the heat curve brutal enough to prevent medium laser spam?

[Azantia]

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....

[Arikiel]

gauge, on 18 May 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

Someone mentioned that a turn in the tabletop game is about 10 seconds of 'real world' battle time passing. But how many turns does a game go for? Because if it's 30 or less, that means we're talking about matches of under 5minutes... which don't sound terribly satisfying to me...

Good point. Occasionally a match can effectively be determined in as little as 6 turns. Which would be about a 1 minute long battle.

[RedDragon]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

35% armor bonus is NOT double armor.

I would be much more amenable to a 35 or even 50% armor bonus, but 100% bonus is crazy.

I'd guess you should wait at least for the beta to make such a fuss about the armor values. As of now, nobody except the Devs knows how it will really play and feel.

Sticking to TT may be fine in most aspects, but a typical game in TT (12vs12) would take hours, if not days to complete though only lasting about 20 turns for a full frontal assault. In real time this is about 3 minutes. Most matches with good pilots and not all assaults are over after turn 10 or so, not even 2 minutes. For a computer game this is awfully short, not even factored in that we don't roll for shots. In TT you seldom hit on better than 6, meaning half the time you'll miss, and even then you have a really small chance to always hit the same spot. And there are no targeting computers at the moment.
I don't think it would be a lot of fun for you coming over a hill with your light mech, getting a lucky shot in the leg that makes you limb and then being taken out by 1 or 2 more shots, not having been more than 1 minute in the game.

Imagine a TT-game where you don't have to roll or always hit on let's say a roll of 2-4 and then can choose which section you want to hit. It will be over in minutes, rather than hours, and where's the fun in that?

Edited by RedDragon, 18 May 2012 - 10:59 PM.

[SuomiWarder]

Sorry if I missed any earlier posts that noted dice probabilities.

I am only saying that I expect some level of armor increase, In another thread I had guessed that around 40% to 50% put us back at TT expectations at medium ranges. I have not done the math for long ranges, and without seeing the zoom feature there is no way to guestimate how often people will miss beyond 500 meters.

I can say that LRMs appear to always hit when locked for a random amount of damage. So a higher armor factor might be needed to account for the average number of LRMs in use. Then again damage over time of lasers might offset auto LRM hits. (It's all so confusing )

I for one am confortable with 200% armor. At that level an AC/ 20 is still going to blow throw all leg armor on a Jenner, while not stoppping a Centurion leg in one shot. It will take 2 CT hits to kill the Centi but the Jenner is still taking internal damage after the first hit. Seems like a fair enough tradeoff for the "rights" of those getting hit compared to the "rights" of those pulling the trigger.

Plus I would think it would be easy to scale as the game progressess and they have stats for the average number of hits a Mech takes and the average life span of a player in a drop. If you want people to shoot at, you need to keep them interested.

[Azantia]

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.

If doubling ammo requirements was a by-product of doubling armor, then thats more of a reason NOT to double armor.

Here is why :
Lets take a mech that mounts the following :
Gauss Rifle (8 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
LRM 20 (6 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
SRM 6 - 15 shots per ton by TT - 30 if doubled)
some laser weapons

by doubled ammo values you would get 16 Gauss rounds, 12 LRM shots and 30 SRM shots for 3 tonsm which by tabletop standards would actually require 6 tons. So you have gained 3 free tons, which can be used for armor, more weapons, heat sinks, etc.

[Gauge]

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 don't follow that logic...

So You had 100, and I had 250... so you take me down in 10 turns, I take you down in 2.5... but I'll have taken 62.5 damage, which is 25% of my armor.

Now you have 200, and I have 500, but we deal the same damage as before. So you will take me down in 20 turns, but I take you down in 5... but I'll have taken 125 damage, which is 25% of my armor...

Still very confused about where the advantage comes from...

[StandingCow]

This doesn't bother me at all... and we won't really know how it "feels" until the game comes out. It would certainly make mechs feel as if they can take more punishment, and may give light mechs a bit more of a chance.

[Azantia]

SuomiWarder, on 18 May 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Sorry if I missed any earlier posts that noted dice probabilities.

I am only saying that I expect some level of armor increase, In another thread I had guessed that around 40% to 50% put us back at TT expectations at medium ranges. I have not done the math for long ranges, and without seeing the zoom feature there is no way to guestimate how often people will miss beyond 500 meters.

I can say that LRMs appear to always hit when locked for a random amount of damage. So a higher armor factor might be needed to account for the average number of LRMs in use. Then again damage over time of lasers might offset auto LRM hits. (It's all so confusing )

I for one am confortable with 200% armor. At that level an AC/ 20 is still going to blow throw all leg armor on a Jenner, while not stoppping a Centurion leg in one shot. It will take 2 CT hits to kill the Centi but the Jenner is still taking internal damage after the first hit. Seems like a fair enough tradeoff for the "rights" of those getting hit compared to the "rights" of those pulling the trigger.

Plus I would think it would be easy to scale as the game progressess and they have stats for the average number of hits a Mech takes and the average life span of a player in a drop. If you want people to shoot at, you need to keep them interested.

It will take more than 2 AC 20 shots to drop a 35 ton jenner with double armor values, and at least 5 to kill a centurion??

Edited by Azantia, 18 May 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Zelekin]

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....

Indeed, a sound theory, and one which PGI is trying to balance around, with things like lights having more speed I suppose. As it stands I am going to go ahead and take a stand and put out my position on this clearly divisive issue.

I think we should depart from TT numbers, at least in some aspects. A computer, real time based game will be different from the more simulated TT.

If we want to play a game that is more accurate to the nature of TT I suppose their is MW:tactics, but that is also being reductive on my part.

And the issue of "free" tons from the doubled ammo is another bucket of crabs entirely, which I think we should hold off on for now, as the information is nothing but conjecture from the videos in which the hunchback's AC/20 had 10 shots (Unless someone has more/other sources for this). For all we know he could have stripped some armor or something for more ammo. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable with 5 shots.

And for one I would be fine with it taking multiple shots to kill someone. If I wanted to deal with weapons of one shot kill and high speed reactions i'd play quake or counter strike, but that is more of a genre difference than anything.

Edited by Zelekin, 18 May 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

It will take more than 2 AC 20 shots to drop a 35 ton jenner with double armor values, and at least 5 to kill a centurion??

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.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 18 May 2012 - 11:10 PM.

[Arikiel]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

If doubling ammo requirements was a by-product of doubling armor, then thats more of a reason NOT to double armor.

Here is why :
Lets take a mech that mounts the following :
Gauss Rifle (8 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
LRM 20 (6 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
SRM 6 - 15 shots per ton by TT - 30 if doubled)
some laser weapons

by doubled ammo values you would get 16 Gauss rounds, 12 LRM shots and 30 SRM shots for 3 tonsm which by tabletop standards would actually require 6 tons. So you have gained 3 free tons, which can be used for armor, more weapons, heat sinks, etc.

and then you won't have enough ammo to last you through the fight. That would be the same as if you were able to take half tons of ammo in TT and chose to do so in favor of more armor, weapons, heat sinks, etc.

[Displacer]

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.

[trycksh0t]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

35% armor bonus is NOT double armor.

I would be much more amenable to a 35 or even 50% armor bonus, but 100% bonus is crazy.

but its clear that the vast majority of people posting here want double armor. I take that to mean alot of things, but I will keep that to myself, I dont want my opinions to rub off in an unhealthy way on my in-game unit.

suffice to say, me and "people" in the world, generally do not see eye to eye, why should this be any different.

Double armor or no, I receive the same handicap, so I guess while annoying, it just means, as someone said "more well placed shots" to take someone down. still disappointed but more disappointed in the community support for this idea now than the original disappointment with the system. Good luck to all, I will see you on the battlefield.

I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the idea of double armor, although I don't understand the huge blowup surrounding the idea, I was simply commending him for making a well thoughtout, non-inflammatory post that offered a different viewpoint to the issue. I was attempting to show an appreciation for his composure and respectfulness, compared to a lot of the comments that appear in forums which are simply an attempt to prove one's superiority and demean others.

[Zakatak]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

If doubling ammo requirements was a by-product of doubling armor, then thats more of a reason NOT to double armor.

Here is why :
Lets take a mech that mounts the following :
Gauss Rifle (8 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
LRM 20 (6 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
SRM 6 - 15 shots per ton by TT - 30 if doubled)
some laser weapons

by doubled ammo values you would get 16 Gauss rounds, 12 LRM shots and 30 SRM shots for 3 tonsm which by tabletop standards would actually require 6 tons. So you have gained 3 free tons, which can be used for armor, more weapons, heat sinks, etc.

The LRM-15's on the Catapult featured in the Heavy Mech Breakdown had 8 shots per ton. The AC/5 had 20 rounds per ton. So... wait...

Have any of us considered that the damage of weapons have been doubled too? I mean, that would make no sense, but Paul might have put those numbers there to undermine MWO's reputation.

Edited by Zakatak, 18 May 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[Sassori]

gauge, on 18 May 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I've never been a TT player, but the reactions to the possible doubling of armor values seem crazy to me... I just don't understand.
So even if we use the straight tabletop math, and an Atlas will take 16 PPC hits to the center torso to go down... why is that inherently bad? Is it because that's the improper number of hits it takes in the lore for it to be destroyed?

Other than that, I can't think of why else it's such a big deal... twice as many shots to kill an Atlas, but it's twice as many shots to kill everything, so it really shouldn't change much of anything except to lengthen a fight. How does it skew the game towards heavies and assaults? They take twice as many hits to kill, but so do you, so if you're good, you can stay alive twice as long, which still lets you take them out with the same margin of error.

Someone mentioned that a turn in the tabletop game is about 10 seconds of 'real world' battle time passing. But how many turns does a game go for? Because if it's 30 or less, that means we're talking about matches of under 5minutes... which don't sound terribly satisfying to me...

Twice as many hits to kill everything makes a MAJOR difference when you are trying to kill something before it gets in your back and erases you without a chance of you turning around and engaging it.

If a Cicada blitzes around without having to worry about getting vaped then it no longer behaves like a light mech. Light mechs are supposed to be fragile. An Atlas is supposed to be tough. Neither is supposed to take multiple PPC hits without caring.

EDIT: That's what I care about, it's how doubling armor and ammo and weakening weapons ruins the whole battletech feel. If I can rain PPC fire into something all day long then the PPC hardly feels like a strong weapon, when it really is supposed to be.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 18 May 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[Gauge]

Azantia, on 18 May 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

If doubling ammo requirements was a by-product of doubling armor, then thats more of a reason NOT to double armor.

Here is why :
Lets take a mech that mounts the following :
Gauss Rifle (8 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
LRM 20 (6 shots per ton by TT - 16 if doubled)
SRM 6 - 15 shots per ton by TT - 30 if doubled)
some laser weapons

by doubled ammo values you would get 16 Gauss rounds, 12 LRM shots and 30 SRM shots for 3 tonsm which by tabletop standards would actually require 6 tons. So you have gained 3 free tons, which can be used for armor, more weapons, heat sinks, etc.

I see what you mean, but I don't agree. After all, if we go with the assumption that armor values are doubled, you need twice as much ammo to get through it. If you take those 3 'free' tons and use them for something else, you'll effectively have half as many shots as in the TT because it takes twice as many shots to get through their armor.

Sure, you can fire the same number of times, but an equal number of shots is half as effective if they have twice as much armor.

[Azantia]

gauge, on 18 May 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

I don't follow that logic...

So You had 100, and I had 250... so you take me down in 10 turns, I take you down in 2.5... but I'll have taken 62.5 damage, which is 25% of my armor.

Now you have 200, and I have 500, but we deal the same damage as before. So you will take me down in 20 turns, but I take you down in 5... but I'll have taken 125 damage, which is 25% of my armor...

Still very confused about where the advantage comes from...

i broke it down as easy as it comes....let me see...

in my example, my net gain was 100 armor, your net gain was 250.
Since weapon damage values dont change, the damage for both of us stayed the same.

In the previous example : it would take you 2.5 turns to destroy me if it was pure armor vs damage output and no "hit locations" where it would take me 10 turns. Which is a difference of 7.5 turns

with double armor : 5 turns for you to win, 20 turns for me to win. Difference of 15 turns.

by doubling the armor values, you gain an additional 7.5 turns of survival against me, where as I only gained 2.5. Who gained more from doubling the armor values? Me in the light/medium or you in the heavy/assault?

Since Heavies and Assaults generally have "more weaponry" and "more base armor" they benefit more from doubling armor values because they can shred armor faster than mechs lighter than them, and have more "free armor" from being doubled to take the punishment that a lighter mech can deal in return. So people will lean towards heavies and assaults, just like in MW4.

[Sassori]

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

The LRM-15's on the Catapult featured in the Heavy Mech Breakdown had 8 shots per ton. The AC/5 had 20 rounds per ton. So... wait...

Have any of us considered that the damage of weapons have been doubled too? I mean, that would make no sense, but Paul might have put those numbers there to undermine MWO's reputation.

If damage was doubled then there is /zero/ point in doubling the armor. Just leave it at stock.