310 replies to this topic

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Having read all posts on both sides, I'm decidedly in favor of doubling armor values, or something similar.

[Talon Thorn]

Zakatak, on 18 May 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Correct. Because obviously, the devs have no way to playtest the game and ensure it is balanced, because the game isn't readily available to them to test. They are clearly taking shots in the dark, making changes without consideration or thought because they don't care how the first Mechwarrior game in 12 years plays. You're are absolutely correct. My proof is just how MW4, which had triple armor values, was very poorly balanced compared to MW3 which used TT values. Video games are exactly like boardgames in every concievable way, and should be treated as such.

Double armor values are stupid. I know that I want to die to 1 small laser to the rear torso of my Jenner and have to pay 1 million C-Bills for repairs for my mistake. You aren't overreacting in the slightest, don't worry what other people might say.

Wow, two FULL PARAGRAPHS of sarcasm... You sir have a gift,

[Vexgrave Lars]

Wolfe-Ryatt, on 19 May 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Having read all posts on both sides, I'm decidedly in favor of doubling armor values, or something similar.

Not surprised Steiner, not surprised at all. LOL

[ethnic minority]

I enjoyed both MW2 and MW4 immensely, so arguments that pose MW4-like gameplay alterations as 'problematic' are just boogeyman/straw man arguments to me.

I'm pretty sure when the devs decide to do something like 'doubling armor values', they aren't arbitrarily-made decisions and rather the devs are merely making these decisions with real time gameplay considerations. Even if they were arbitrarily made, months of open beta testing would help eke out these details.

IIRC TT was just a closely-followed guideline, not a rule. There are many things TT does not account for that the Mechwarrior games have in terms of armor. Have you considered that the Dragon's beergut/snout that makes up its center torso poses are larger side profile, making it easier to selectively target a flanking Dragon's CT in realtime? TT doesn't even need to worry about that.

[Helmer]

If we take a look at this screenshot http://www.ign.com/i...a0ef1332d000014

It does indeed show a Catapult with Armor of 352. Which if it is doubled armor values would be 11 tons of Armor (11 tons x 16 points x 2) . However, if this is actually what it is, then why is it showing the maximum as being 868? Maximum for that Chassis? That weight class? All 'mechs? If that's the case that would mean the maximum armor would be 27.125 tons. I highly doubt PGI has diverged that much from traditional TT rules.


Its no wonder that game companies choose not to post Beta screen shots. It usually seems to do more to anger and distance its playerbase than to entice and entertain.

Speculation is all well and good, but again, let's not try not to be too harsh.

We've been , relatively, good so far,so let's all try and be respectful of the OP and everyone else who CHOOSES to post in this thread.



Cheers.

[Talon Thorn]

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...

It's bad because if that's the way it's done then the game devolves into the arms race we've seen in past MW titles....with the heavier mechs being the most popular choices due to "enhanced" survivability.... Role warfare goes out the window, the need to develop skill, actually think goes out the window, and everything becomes a short ranged slugfest instead of a tactical battle.

But that's just my two cents...

[Wolfe Ryatt]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Not surprised Steiner, not surprised at all. LOL

true, I'll be in Steiner...but considering the game will be best played as a team with a mix of mech classes (and I myself already have a light variant that I want to work toward and use), my choice of faction has little bearing on my decision here.

[Sassori]

Helmer, on 19 May 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

If we take a look at this screenshot http://www.ign.com/i...a0ef1332d000014

It does indeed show a Catapult with Armor of 352. Which if it is doubled armor values would be 11 tons of Armor (11 tons x 16 points x 2) . However, if this is actually what it is, then why is it showing the maximum as being 868? Maximum for that Chassis? That weight class? All 'mechs? If that's the case that would mean the maximum armor would be 27.125 tons. I highly doubt PGI has diverged that much from traditional TT rules.


Its no wonder that game companies choose not to post Beta screen shots. It usually seems to do more to anger and distance its playerbase than to entice and entertain.

Speculation is all well and good, but again, let's not try not to be too harsh.

We've been , relatively, good so far,so let's all try and be respectful of the OP and everyone else who CHOOSES to post in this thread.



Cheers.

The only point to really take out of this is this: If you're going to talk about something, and show something, be prepared to discuss it and give more information. You leave someone in the dark they will make assumptions based on their own needs/desires/personality. Some will be supportive, some will be negative, some will not care, all are equally valid and invalid.

I'm trying not to be to judgemental, but it is a balancing act that is really easy to screw up with and that makes people worried. Is it fixed in stone? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. It's just really really easy to assume the worst after dealing with other beta's that ignored the players suggestions and didn't answer direct questions.

For example: It'd take Bryan thirty seconds to say: We're using these armor amounts as we're still balancing refire rates and we want to get a larger sample size of the impacts it makes on the game per shot.

Nearly everyone would quit complaining then, it's being in the dark that makes it horrible. Humans are by nature, very fearful beasts.

[Talon Thorn]

Bullwerk, on 19 May 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

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.

Great, more "dubious" math...

[Vexgrave Lars]

Interesting but speculative topic... assuming the below blog is accurate... this is probably just testing.

http://mwomercs.com/...-blog-6-mechlab


" How is Armour going to be handled?
The way armour is being treated in MechWarrior Online is very similar to how it’s done in the tabletop game. That is, for every one ton of standard armour, the chassis is given 16 points of armor. These 16 points can be assigned to the various sections of a BattleMech. If the player purchases 8 tons of armor for their BattleMech, they can assign 128 armour points throughout
As per tabletop rules, each weight class of BattleMech has a maximum amount of armour it can sustain and this will be reflected in MechWarrior Online
One last thing we will be carrying over from tabletop is the ability to distribute armour between the front and back torso of a BattleMech as well"

And looking at the screenshot Helmer posted in his accurate, if a bit crass portrayal of the topics concern. The Firepower values are empty, as are the heat efficiency but you can see weapons and heatsinks assigned. While Azantia's math is accurate, it is based on a portrayal of what is an unfinished product. If this comes out in launch this way I would be astounded.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 19 May 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[MrGray]

Skilled mechwarrior with good alphastrike will ruin a game without doubling TT armor values, its obvious for any video gamer.

Edited by MrGray, 19 May 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Applejack]

I hope the relative armor values & damages remain practically the same. You can tweak here and there, but I want decisive, visceral, and tactical action... not a boring slugfest.

Edited by Applejack, 19 May 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Zakatak]

Video Game vs. Tabletop Pacing

Reloading times: 10 seconds --> 5 to 1 seconds
"Turn" times: 10 seconds --> Realtime
Accuracy: Players are generally much more accurate in VG then TT
Ammo: 2x for some weapons, 1x for others, 10x for the MG

Even with the armor doubling, killing eachother will still take much less time then it did in Tabletop. It will definetly take less time then MW4, because torso and arm movement is much more natural in MWO, and considering that weapon distances have generally been cut by a third, we will be fighting closer, and thus be able to see and hit eachother easier. I suspect that the time-to-kill will be similar or slightly longer to MW3, which had it right. MW4 was too slow, MW2 was too fast.

Also, somebody, I think it was Aza, said something along these lines (I think, if not ignore this part): If a light mech has 100 armor points, and a heavy mech has 200 armor points, then heavier mech will recieve more net gain from the armor double. The light mech will gain 100 points of armor, the heavy will gain 200 points of armor, so the heavy mech gets twice the advantage from it.

But... 200/100=2, and 400/200=2. So the heavy mech still has double the armor points. So isn't it balanced anyway?

Edited by Zakatak, 19 May 2012 - 01:25 PM.

[Pvt Dancer]

Toothman, on 19 May 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

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

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

Your assuming alot. Devs are testing now to make sure things /work/, not nessarily balanced. In all of those vids, they were obviously in God mode where they were taking no damage in the POV mech, others, not so.

As for killing me in 3-5 seconds, you had better keep assuming I don't kill you first and that you can hit me.

Yeach, on 19 May 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Arggghhhh..

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

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

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

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

Yes, I would be totally satisfied with 10 second recycle times, for all weapons. True, it feels silly for MGs, but I don't have a problem with the removal of MGs from the game... they were only in mechs as infantry defense anyway. You can leave the hard points on mech variants as ballistic hard points from where they mounted MGs to still give people the mechlab option.

The only mechs that are screwed by a 10 second recycle time are mechs with a single weapon, and we have none. If you have more than one weapon, you can easily cycle through them to produce a stream of continual fire.

I was playing CoD:Black Ops the other day in Combat practice mode, and it occurred to me that making MWO pin point accuracy would be a bad plan, that they should use the 'hip fire' mode, as I saw shots scatter all over the enemy, yet not kill him in full auto burst. They could easily add this in to make standard armor values work, specially if your moving. Sure, if you stand still, the reticule could narrow down to a 2-3 area location, specially as you get closer. Add in a non-targeting zoom ability or just widen the reticule... just remove pin point accuracy from the game to the point where the only way would be to stand toe to toe to do it.

In WoTs this same thing works well. I play every class of tanks, and trust me, it really sucks when your playing Arty and your waiting till your reticule shrinks to the smallest point on a non-moving target and you miss the SOB. But you also can pull off one hit kills and also hit moving targets...so you do get both sides of the coin. It /can/ work.

As far as I am concerned, full weapon damage and base armor levels should be based off of of recycle time and targeting. In WoTs, firing once every 10 seconds is a /good/ thing. Plenty of weapons have slower recycle rates... WITH A SINGLE GUN.
It also means heat can be a better balancing factor, like it should be, as to cope with faster recycle times your have to have heat dissipate in the same cycle.... instead of 1 heat for a IS heat sink every 10 seconds, you have to speed it up. You two better hope it is, or you might be shutting yourselves down in 15 seconds.
Also means that alpha striking /means/ something... You really have to consider if you want to alpha strike if your not going to be able to fire a weapon for 10 more seconds vs nickel and diming your opponent. With double armor, that alpha strike is alot less impressive. You /know/ your going to be getting in close and knife fighting them because you /will not/ kill them at range.

I have no problem what so ever with a 10 second recycle time or 'hip firing' widened targeting reticules that get rid of pin point accuracy. Because then neither standard base armor and weapon damage would need to be nerfed or boosted, which is what is happening now. Nerf targeting...accurately have people be able to 'miss' shots. Would that be so bad? Is that so terrible?

[Spider]

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.

Really???

Feel free to present your data in a vacumn. It can make for interesting (and fun) debate. But when you present your data as irreversably game-changing and cry, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling", ignoring the other pertinent facts, just for the sake of your single-point argument, you lose validity.

To state that the double armor values ruin the game beyond all chance of repair is rubbish. Also, to say that they have no affect at all is rubbish. The game is in beta. It is being tested. The developers have started from an awesome base, the boardgame rules, and are buidling from there. What more could we ask for.

To those that preach the perfection of the original boardgame rules: The boardgame never was and hasn't ever been a "balanced" simulation. It is a fun beer and pretzels dice-roller.

I am sitting in my mancave at this moment looking and my dozens of BT sourcebooks. The world that was created around the game was the strongpoint of the old boardgame along with THE SIMPLICITY OF THE GAMEPLAY.

The computer game MECHWARRIOR ONLINE is going to be a simulation built on the honored bones of that august and well-liked "simple" boardgame.

I for one am looking forward to it and refuse to believe the sky is falling.

/not dissapointed (until it makes sense to be dissappointed)

[Pvt Dancer]

This game is, no matter what is said, based off of table top battletech. To turn table top to a FPS, there are 5 things that were balanced... Armor, Damage, Recycle Time, Accuracy and Heat.

Everything is balanced off of each other. There is a reason why every mech did not have max armor or that heat sinks are designed the way they are to even the number of heat sinks to weapons mounted. From building the mech from the ground up, those 5 factors are used for balance.

They are increasing accuracy and recycle time, so they have to boost armor. With increased recycle time, how does heat work? You better hope it is also increased recycle time then. But the balance is already screwed up. How much of a threat is a mech with 2 medium lasers now that his weapons are DoT and he really can't hurt anyone for a long time due to double armor? Well, now you have to up gun him. And if you can't fit the guns on him, you go for bigger mechs that can carry those guns. That boost to armor is already creating a artificial boost to mechs as now they will have to be tweaked out to do more damage to over come said armor.

I feel those are the wrong things to increase... you nerf accuracy and keep recycle time standard, heat becomes your balancing factor, as intended. The 2d6 roll to hit in table top is now turned into a firing cone that can potentially scatter the damage all over the mech... bamn, balanced just like in table top. You have a chance to actually miss the mech, which doesn't appear to be the case now...

Edited by Pvt Dancer, 19 May 2012 - 02:17 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Tyzh, on 19 May 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

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

Thank you. You are correct except for one thing. Due to movement, convergence, and skill, in all likelihood the damage would be spread more, and the light mech would last LONGER than 4 seconds. if the atlas is able to concentrate fire and focus it would be double the length. If not, who knows how much longer the light would last.

The Dev's have been stating repeatedly that light can somewhat stand their ground against assaults, and this is probably the reason why.

As I said before, my primary concern with double armor is fights degrading into furballs all the time.

[ManDaisy]

There is always gonna be an arms race of damage vs survival-ability . Its the classic shield and spear analogy. If they do deviate from table top however then out goes all the allure of the ac20, and just as well all the weapons balance. Pretty much no one will use smaller weapons, suchs as the case of mw4, and everything will just be the biggest is best all over again. ITs all gonna be LOL PPCS, Gause Rifles, and Autocannons because anything else wont make a dent.

Assault will definitely gain the most from doubled armor and I'll tell you why. A light mech can't pack as much punch due to weight restrictions as an heavier mech. Suddenly you double the armor and thats cutting its firepower essentially in half. The assault mech will be still packing more heat then a light mech ever could so it would still maintain its advantage. The light mech being lowly armored to start wont gain that much, I mean sure it can survive a second alphastrike if its lucky but now it has a much smaller chance of doing anything significant with its smaller lesser hitting weapons. Think small and mediums lasers are weak? Think the ac 2 is weak? Try see how useless they quickly become vs double armor especially with DOT in play which is already a balance so that double armor is not necessary.

If people do feel the need for double armor they should have that ability, so long as it sticks to the cannon reinforced armor and all its rules and limits.

Edited by ManDaisy, 19 May 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Sassori]

That's one of the many problems with additional armor for all. The PPC, the AC-20, the LRM-20, and the Gauss Rifle all become significantly less threatening. It breaks the feel of the game at a fundamental level, and it pushes towards extreme's of boats to even feel like a person is having a measurable effect on the opponent.

[Gauge]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 May 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

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

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

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

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

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

2 Large Pizzas are 24 slices

2 Small Pizzas are 12 Slices

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

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

...Okay, now I'm really confused by this math. If a large pizza feeds 4 people (Just as an example), and a small feeds 2... and then you order two of each... two larges still only feeds 8 people, and 2 smalls still only feed 4. That is, in fact, doubling.

But you seem to be implying that 2 larges feeds 10 people now, and it won't. I agree that Az's math is not wrong, but I think the information being gathered by it is. I do recognize that this change can mix-up the tactics and 'feel' of the game under certain conditions for those loyal to TT, though that's not something that bothers me personally is all.