1063 replies to this topic

[HRR Insanity]

Sirous, on 25 February 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

I honestly don't agree with most of what you posted, it is very contradictory.
In essence you want a one shot game, where every weapon can kill immediately, or within one or two shots.

Incorrect. I want individual weapons to be potentially powerful and not unbalanced by inclusion in weapon groups.

Quote

Right now matches are short enough as it is and you proposals would only make things even shorter.

No, it wouldn't. Drop weapon damage back to normal, adjust armor to where you want it AFTER determining how long people will live when good pilots use the single weapon pin-point accuracy well.

Quote

Armor doubled is a good thing, if they take that away they need to halve all weapon damage.

No, they won't. Because you won't have 6 medium lasers hitting the same panel and breaking it instantly. You won't have 2xAC20 blowing holes in things... etc.

Quote

As for removing hardpoints that will only increase most of the other issues you have in regards to this game.

See above.

Quote

That will only increase the boating issues you have within the game.

There would be an actual downside to having many of the same weapon. You'd have to be willing to either chain fire them for accuracy... or their damage would be spread by the cone of fire if you fire too many at the same time.

Quote

Doubled up weapons are more powerful and it is a result of the hardpoint system. Though a single ac20 in my Hunchback will heartily disagree with the AC20 not being feared or useful or damaging or powerful. What is the first thing most people try and take out and that is the AC20, or Gauss if someone fit that in there.
PPC's are much better now and very useful
LL or also very damaging and useful
LRM's and SRM's are in limbo, Both are considered very powerful but they are constantly being changed so we shall see next month.

All weapons require multiples to be useful. This is a travesty.

Quote

ML are what they are basically the best self defensive weapon in the game, or in the case of lights and mediums best offensive weapons in this game. Though they need to be grouped, is that really such a bad thing.

Yes. 2 MLs should be dangerous. 1 ML should be dangerous. With doubled armor, it's not.

Quote

From what I gather SL's were rarely useful in any of the mech games. Unless they were boated. Nor should they be, Same with MG's apparently from what I have read were never really meant to be used against other mechs.

Incorrect. Please see BT.

Quote

As for boating, Everyone complains that the hardpoint system is ruining customization, but without it every mech could essentially turn into a boat of some weapon or other, where will the rest of your complaints be then.

They wouldn't apply... because BOATING itself would be balanced.

Quote

Armor needed to be doubled because this is an FPS game and not based on die rolls. If you wanted to see what happened to mechs if armor wasn't doubled you should have been around when repair/rearm was in and people either didn't or forgot to repair their mechs and how quickly they went down. No Sir I do not want that at all, thank you very much.

Please re-read and try to understand the concept.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 February 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

If we'd come reasonably close to table top" accuracy", the pilot will definitely be the main arbiter for hitting his target at all.

Why not simply use the paramaters from the TT that describe how capable a 'Mech is of using it's weapons?

Mongoose Trueborn, on 25 February 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

I want some of what you are smoking.

The only thing that differs between the player skill sets in an FPS game and in an actual MW video game is that the 'Mech calculates the convergences for the weapons...

... and replaces that one player skill with: you having to have the skill to track your internal heat levels, figure out how much they will affect your 'Mech's abilities to bring it's weapons to bear, track your Mech's movement, and estimate how it will affect the 'Mech's ability to bring the weapons to bear, account for how your target's movement will affect your 'Mech's ability to aim, account for how each different weapons type and ammo type you're firing is going to affect your 'Mech's ability to aim... there may be more.

Otherwise, you still have to use the exact same skills with the reticule - you have to put it where you want things to hit, and you have to keep it where you want things to hit.

The idea that a game which simulates what it's like to pilot a battlemech in combat requires "less player skill" is just wrongheaded and ignorant.

Edited by Pht, 25 February 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[Colaessus]

Its so doomed that your playing it still . . . .

[Doc Holliday]

Pht, on 25 February 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

... This argument has been around since MW 1. I wouldn't expect it to die any time soon... and It's not as if someone's forcing you to read this thread.



Wanting a game that is, by definition, about imitating what it's like to "do" combat in a BattleMech ... to actually imitate what it's like to do combat in a BattleMech ... is not "face-palm" worthy.



I don't agree with his solution but the problem he points out is very real.

They started with the weapons damage numbers and mech armor/structure numbers from the TT system but they did NOT use the non-pilot combat mechanics those numbers were designed for.

Instead, they took those numbers and put them into a system that would, by it's very design, result in horrible gameplay with those numbers - and because of this they have had to constantly tweak the numbers; and it will get worse as they add more weapons.

They have forced themselves to choose between either having uber-munchkinized gameplay ... or constantly tweaking their combat system in whack-a-mole fashion to try and "equalize" whatever the latest/greatest setup is.

If they stop tweaking, the game will become stratified, unfriendly to new players in the extreme, and boil down to a one or two trick game.

If they keep tweaking, they will be continuously ticking off people as their latest and greatest setup is nullified.

Either way, it's bad mojo.

You know that other thread you started over a year ago? The one you linked a few posts back? Yeah, the first response you got way back then in Nov. 2011 was spot on, and should have put this to rest a long long time ago.

Of course you gotta have dice and luck in a TT game - you can't very well use your own skill to aim and fire weapons. Thus dice are the best you can really do to simulate someone piloting a mech.

This is not TT, and there's much better ways than luck and chance to simulate someone piloting a mech.

And no one's made any convincing arguments that this is a problem that needs solving, at all.

[Grizley]

If you look at tabletop the norm pre DHS is mounting at least 2 primary weapons and then backup weapons. After DHS it goes to at least 2 of your primary weapon and likely 4+ or two pairs of similar weapons.

It does vary by weight range, the very first lights tended to carry 1 ML as a primary weapon, early exceptions being the upper end of the light mech range with things like the Jenner packing 4ML and a SRM pack, Panther that is slow but mounts a PPC on a light etc.

Some of the core early mechs with two+ primary weapons mounted in pairs.

Catapult - 2x LRM15
Warhammer - 2x PPC, and other than the SRM pack all the backup weapons are mounted in pairs too.
Marauder - 2x PPC, 2xML 1xAC5.
Rifleman - 2X large laser, 2xAC5, 2xML
Battlemaster - 6x ML, 1xPPC is really the backup.
Jenner - 2x2x ML

Mechs with a single primary.
Stinger - 1x ML
Wasp - 1x ML
Shadowhawk - 1 of a lot of stuff, terrible mech.
Griffin - 1x PPC 1xLRM10
Phoenix Hawk (overgrown Wasp) - 1xLL but paired ML and MGs.

When the largest weapon you can mount that deals damage outside point blank range does 10 damage and an assault mech carrys 40 armor on a location and you hit random locations then you obviously want more than 1 weapon. It's not like an assault mech can be built to the Phoenix Hawk model with a BFG on one arm and a pair of large lasers for backup.

[Pht]

Sean Casey, on 25 February 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Random spread? No, I would not agree to that.

What do you mean by "random?" Do you mean, aim at "his toe, shoot yourself in the face" random? Or maybe, "aim at his toe, hit his cockpit random?" ... or "aim at his right torso, might hit his left torso?"

...

And do you know what others mean when they use the word random?

Quote

However, no or fixed convergence for torso based weapons? Yes.

Torso mounted weapons in battlemechs can and do converge.

Quote

So a mech standing still has an accuracy advantage, one at a full run will be much harder to shoot with in a natural manner. Don't just gimick it with a random numbers, base it off of the angle and position of the weapon on the torso. The more simulator approach.

You do realize that even a full-on physics engine setup utilizes randomizers and would thus fall under a "gimmick" as you've said?

Quote

This also had the advantage of better simulating the fact that in TT light mechs while being harder to hit when running 11 hexes, also had a harder time hitting. Currently, a light mech is correctly hard to hit at full speed, but your weapons are just as accurate at 129kph as they are at 0kph. If the circle is on the part, it hits, always with near perfect convergence.

This is entirely possible without having a CoF setup or a setup with unpredictable and uncontrollable results from weapons fire: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

[Grizley]

And small lasers useful in TT?

When was this?

Considering they had almost no range, and accuracy was based on the range for the weapon not the range to the target they were pretty terrible weapons in TT. I can't think of a single design that wasn't improved by removing any SL it had and replacing it with either armor or heat sinks.

I think one of the more unbalancing problems with weapons at the moment is that weapon accuracy is based on the size of the target, not how far away it is, not how far inside the maximum range of the weapon you're firing you are or any of that. So hitting specific locations on an Atlas at max range with a ML is pretty easy while hitting a Commando at all at the max range of a ML is much more difficult. Now if you get closer the relative size of the target gets bigger, but it doesn't matter if you're firing an AC2 or a small laser.

I think that's (one of) the reasons PPCs had so much trouble earlier, in TT they were relatively accurate weapons because they were usually in medium or even short range while a ML was at long. So with a +2 vs a -2 to target numbers to hit the PPC hit much more often. In MWO hitting with a PPC at 270m is HARDER to do than hitting with a ML. Of course the heat and damage numbers don't help any.

[Doc Holliday]

Thanks for reposting that thread link. Let me just quote the applicable part of the post that should have put to rest this whole discussion over a year ago.

Mchawkeye, on 30 November 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

You seem to be simulating the TT rather than a mech. I have said before, and will happily say again, the TT rules were designed for a TT game, they were not designed for a Video game; appropriating the inherent randomness from that rule set and featuring it into a simulator will make for a very frustrating simulator. The challenges from TT rules and VG rules are very, very different; they came to those conclusions for the sake of the wargame balance; to adhere to those rules in the VG would be to ignore fundamentally what those rules were designed to do in the first instance; that is to say, a VG with those rules would be unbalanced.
While I have no doubt that what you describe would be an accurate representation of piloting a battlemech from a TT point of view, it would make for a deeply annoying game; I think people need to feel in control of their mech, not as you suggest, simply give the mech a decent idea of what you want to achieve and let it sort of the rest. There are places where Mechwarrior will need to move away from the TT and this is one of those things, I think.

He was right then, and still is now. You use randomness in TT because you can't do real-time aiming and firing of weapons. That's the whole point of moving to a video game - so YOU have control over that part of the game, instead of leaving it up to luck. If that luck is what you want, go play TT. There's nothing stopping you. If you must have it on the PC, just wait a bit longer for MW Tactics, it should be ready some time this year and a LOT more of a direct translation of TT.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 25 February 2013 - 04:52 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Grizley, on 25 February 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

And small lasers useful in TT?

When was this?

Considering they had almost no range, and accuracy was based on the range for the weapon not the range to the target they were pretty terrible weapons in TT. I can't think of a single design that wasn't improved by removing any SL it had and replacing it with either armor or heat sinks.

I think one of the more unbalancing problems with weapons at the moment is that weapon accuracy is based on the size of the target, not how far away it is, not how far inside the maximum range of the weapon you're firing you are or any of that. So hitting specific locations on an Atlas at max range with a ML is pretty easy while hitting a Commando at all at the max range of a ML is much more difficult. Now if you get closer the relative size of the target gets bigger, but it doesn't matter if you're firing an AC2 or a small laser.

I think that's (one of) the reasons PPCs had so much trouble earlier, in TT they were relatively accurate weapons because they were usually in medium or even short range while a ML was at long. So with a +2 vs a -2 to target numbers to hit the PPC hit much more often. In MWO hitting with a PPC at 270m is HARDER to do than hitting with a ML. Of course the heat and damage numbers don't help any.

Sure, it's harder to hit with a PPC at 270m... but it's MUCH harder to hit with a laser at the same distance for full damage on the same component.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Pht, on 25 February 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Why not simply use the paramaters from the TT that describe how capable a 'Mech is of using it's weapons?



The only thing that differs between the player skill sets in an FPS game and in an actual MW video game is that the 'Mech calculates the convergences for the weapons...

... and replaces that one player skill with: you having to have the skill to track your internal heat levels, figure out how much they will affect your 'Mech's abilities to bring it's weapons to bear, track your Mech's movement, and estimate how it will affect the 'Mech's ability to bring the weapons to bear, account for how your target's movement will affect your 'Mech's ability to aim, account for how each different weapons type and ammo type you're firing is going to affect your 'Mech's ability to aim... there may be more.

Otherwise, you still have to use the exact same skills with the reticule - you have to put it where you want things to hit, and you have to keep it where you want things to hit.

The idea that a game which simulates what it's like to pilot a battlemech in combat requires "less player skill."

You are delusional. If this was true then you wouldn't be on your soap box crying to the few people who care? When has any MW game calculated the hits? Just because you dream of a day where you can be equally effective at something as everyone else doesn't make it reality.

This isn't mechcommander, it's mechwarrior. I think you are confused as the great thing about this game is having to have skill to manage heat and everything else you talk about AND be able to quickly aim to hit exactly where you mean to hit.

You can't just be smart and be an elite mechwarrior. You have to be smart and have excellent hand eye coordination. No amount of crying on the forums is going to change that.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

You know that other thread you started over a year ago? The one you linked a few posts back? Yeah, the first response you got way back then in Nov. 2011 was spot on, and should have put this to rest a long long time ago.

You mean the one where Mchawkeye irrationally tried to say that we should be simulating mechs, as if they really existed... when they don't?

Or where he made the baseless argument that having 'Mechs in an MW video game perform in combat like 'Mechs in the TT (and thus like they do in the novels) would be "frustrating" when all one would have to do to learn to control their grouping is to slow down when you shoot, don't shoot when you're running hot, and use weapons that are appropriate for the range you're engaging at?

Or maybe where he says that it would make people feel "not in control of their 'Mech" - when it wouldn't result in such - he's making the mistake of thinking that a Mech simulator should put you in direct, simulated control of the weapons - not in direct, simulated control of the 'Mech?

Or where he makes the mistake of thinking that all 6 laser should *always* hit under the conditions I mentioned, forgetting that the lasers have to have an "on time" to do their rated damage, and that the target isn't a stable tank, but a swaying gangly target that can twitch and evade?

Quote

Of course you gotta have dice and luck in a TT game - you can't very well use your own skill to aim and fire weapons.

Saying that luck is not fundamental to a game does not mean that therefore, there can be no luck in that game.

It was said that luck is fundamental to the TT. It is not. You can control what percentages of hit you are rolling against and you can get those percentages over 75% and even up to 100%. In fact, the best TT players are the ones who always manage their conditions such that they can hit easily.

Luck is nice to have in the TT game. But it is not fundamental.

Quote

Thus dice are the best you can really do to simulate someone piloting a mech.

Sure, there are dice rolls in the TT combat mechanic to simulate the pilot's interaction with their 'Mech.

And there are only two of them; the piloting skill rolls and the gunnery skill rolls.

The other combat mechanics represent the combat capability of the 'Mech and the "bench performance" of the weapons - and it is these two factors which are not in MWO.

Quote

This is not TT,

I haven't posted that it is.

Heck, I haven't see ANYONE ... post that it is.

Quote

And no one's made any convincing arguments that this is a problem that needs solving, at all.

So you don't mind either MW4 style munched out one trick style gameplay? Or Dofus style constant character/setup build destroying tweaking?

These two things are necessary consequences of the way the MWO combat system is right now.

[Grizley]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

Sure, it's harder to hit with a PPC at 270m... but it's MUCH harder to hit with a laser at the same distance for full damage on the same component.

This is true, especially for a laser with a longer beam length. I don't think it's harder to land say 80%ish of a laser on a single component than it is to hit with a PPC though. Good luck doing it against a light in either case, and not too hard doing it against an Atlas.

It was actually dead easy to land 100% of a laser beam on a single component in an Atlas vs Atlas duel under 300m. A slow stable firing platform against a large slow target... yeah.

Just for fun, in TT at a range of 7 with a base target of 7 (equal gunnery skill) then a ER PPC hits 83% of the time and a ML hits 28% of time. That's a pretty huge gap in accuracy. +2 is a pretty big difference, +4 is huge on 2d6. That's over half the expected average. In TT weapon range = accuracy. In MWO weapon range = able to do damage or not.

Edited by Grizley, 25 February 2013 - 05:14 PM.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Thanks for reposting that thread link. Let me just quote the applicable part of the post that should have put to rest this whole discussion over a year ago.

Reposting the argument here doesn't make it any less irrational, as I've just shown it is.

Quote

You use randomness in TT because you can't do real-time aiming and firing of weapons.

In a MW video game you are in direct control of a 'Mech. You are not in direct magical, nonsense control of the 'Mech's weapons.

It's the 'Mech that actually does the physical aiming of the weapons and it is the 'Mech that calculates where to aim those weapons.

MW=BattleMech combat simulator.

Not "FPS style direct weapons control slower and more pretty game"

MW is not an FPS. It is a first person armored combat simulator; and the armored combat unit is what directly controls the weapons.

[Doc Holliday]

Pht, on 25 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Reposting the argument here doesn't make it any less irrational, as I've just shown it is.



In a MW video game you are in direct control of a 'Mech. You are not in direct magical, nonsense control of the 'Mech's weapons.

It's the 'Mech that actually does the physical aiming of the weapons and it is the 'Mech that calculates where to aim those weapons.

MW=BattleMech combat simulator.

Not "FPS style direct weapons control slower and more pretty game"

MW is not an FPS. It is a first person armored combat simulator; and the armored combat unit is what directly controls the weapons.

I read your post in that thread. I read pretty much the whole thread. Mchawkeye's post was the most rational post in the whole thread and you refuted nothing he posted. You tried to, but failed.

Just because YOU want random luck thrown into your Mech sim doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Bottom line, your opinion is no more valid than Mchawkeye's a year ago or mine today, and frankly most players disagree with it. Your idea of how it should be would make the game less fun for most players, which makes it less profitable for PGI, which means if they have any sense at all (which is debatable, I'll admit) they'll never implement anything remotely like it.

TL;DR: Your ideas suck. Get over it.

[Pht]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 25 February 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

You are delusional. If this was true then you wouldn't be on your soap box crying to the few people who care?

... when you can't make a valid argument ... call someone something they aren't and than presume you know something you can't know... I guess doing this makes for a handy way to try and club someone into submission.

Quote

When has any MW game calculated the hits?

So now something is right and true... because a majority claims it is? So what If the previous MW video games did it that way.

Quote

Just because you dream of a day where you can be equally effective at something as everyone else doesn't make it reality.

Yes, I simply *must* be making the argument I am because I just suck at MWO/mw4/etc/etc.

Never mind that this conclusion is nonsense.

Quote

This isn't mechcommander, it's mechwarrior.

... and I'm not confusing the two.

Quote

I think you are confused as the great thing about this game is having to have skill to manage heat and everything else you talk about AND be able to quickly aim to hit exactly where you mean to hit.

I didn't post (explicitly or implicitly) that you don't have to be "able to quickly aim to hit exactly where you mean to hit."

I posted - "you have to put it where you want things to hit, and you have to keep it where you want things to hit" ... "it" being the reticule.

What, exactly, are you arguing about?

[Fergrim]

PGI is great, them not taking your suggestions seriously means they are even greater.

Edited by Fergrim, 25 February 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[Roland]

It should be clearly stated that nothing Insanity has presented here even comes close to the stuff that Pht was talking about in his thread.

Insanity's only suggestions are meant to address the fact that allowing folks to duct-tape all of their weapons and turn them into what is effectively a single large point damage source results in numerous balancing issues. And we've seen it happen in every single mechwarrior game to date, as well as this one.

It's a mistake to think that the only way to address such an issue is to turn everything over to dice throws, because that's certainly not the case.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 25 February 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

I read your post in that thread. I read pretty much the whole thread. Mchawkeye's post was the most rational post in the whole thread and you refuted nothing he posted. You tried to, but failed.

Yes, I failed!

And I only failed because you say so!

Not because you can actually post how I failed!

Pht said:

You mean the one where Mchawkeye irrationally tried to say that we should be simulating mechs, as if they really existed... when they don't?

Or where he made the baseless argument that having 'Mechs in an MW video game perform in combat like 'Mechs in the TT (and thus like they do in the novels) would be "frustrating" when all one would have to do to learn to control their grouping is to slow down when you shoot, don't shoot when you're running hot, and use weapons that are appropriate for the range you're engaging at?

Or maybe where he says that it would make people feel "not in control of their 'Mech" - when it wouldn't result in such - he's making the mistake of thinking that a Mech simulator should put you in direct, simulated control of the weapons - not in direct, simulated control of the 'Mech?

Or where he makes the mistake of thinking that all 6 laser should *always* hit under the conditions I mentioned, forgetting that the lasers have to have an "on time" to do their rated damage, and that the target isn't a stable tank, but a swaying gangly target that can twitch and evade?

And especially not because you can interact with the stuff I just quoted from myself here! ... that might actually require you to cash in that check your mouth (fingers, in this case) just made.

Quote

Just because YOU want random luck thrown into your Mech sim doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Just because YOU think everyone should agree with your strawmen arguments ... just because YOU think that everyone should not have to play a 'Mech combat game in a series about 'Mech combat ... doesn't mean the rest of us do.

Quote

Bottom line, your opinion is no more valid than Mchawkeye's a year ago or mine today,

'

And everyone should believe you because ... you post a conclusion you haven't backed up!

Quote

...and frankly most players disagree with it.

You can't know this. I guess it's easier to make impossible claims than actually interact.

Quote

Your idea of how it should be would make the game less fun for most players, which makes it less profitable for PGI, which means if they have any sense at all (which is debatable, I'll admit) they'll never implement anything remotely like it.

Can you ... without resorting to grossly misrepresenting my position...

and if you can't repeat someone's position back to them in your own words in a way that they would recognize it as their own position, you don't understand their position...

show how actually simulating the 'Mech's ability to handle it's weapons in combat would be "less fun for most players?"

Roland, on 25 February 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

It's a mistake to think that the only way to address such an issue is to turn everything over to dice throws, ...

I didn't post anything even remotely like "everything should be turned over to dice throws."

Edited by Pht, 25 February 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[ChrisOrange]

I'm too tired to re-type and re-purpose this suggestion list for THIS thread...so you're getting the good ole copy/paste for the clan weapons ideas. Could even be used on current weapons IDK.

(This is on Gameplay bias and not BT/Lore bias. I've no interest in trying to solve these problems through the lens of BT and neither should the devs. Gameplay first and universe 2nd/3rd IMO. Also just solving all problems with spread/recoil might not fit in this game...so lets think outside the box.)



If we are sniffing around for ways to make the gameplay better... then there are lots of options.

Maybe when the clan weapons come out you need to lead your UAC20 AND account for bullet drop AND make sure all rounds from a single salvo hit to do max damage. Clan weapons will need some TLC once they are implemented any way. So now there's a tradeoff...a few skills to get better at. Want to just lead the target? Go AC20...want to do slightly more damage if you are good enough? UAC20 w/ leading and bullet drop. That's one example but I'm sure there will be more.

Update: For your clan energy weapons...On a hit reload fast. On a full miss punish reload. Hit half of that energy shot ? Not good enough: full reload time punish. Rewards skilled aim..allows for them to do more damage...simple. No random number generators etc. Missing shots=Less dps than normal lasers. Need to put damage on lights? Normal lasers probably easier to handle.

Update2: Or maybe for some clan weapons do a HEAT punish for misses. Does it make sense? Not really. Does it make the gameplay better...PROBABLY. Is there a reason to take Normal weapons instead of clan? Yes. Mission accomplished.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be flexible compared to your BT rules. Else you run into those problems where Clan tech is just flat out better. The best way to balance them would make each one require some xtra in-game skill that you can practice. Not some bogus tacked on limitation set by strict game rules or dice rolls that steal challenge and mastery away from the title.

Edit: Look at the UAC/5 implementation. I just lock up because random...not because of any skill I lack. Let's have a little more faith in your player base and see what happens.

Edited by ChrisOrange, 25 February 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[Connatic]

Since dice are gone and you can aim based on personal skill...taking everything from the table top will not work...which is why adjustments need to be made according...but at the same time makes me wonder why they try to stick with so many other numbers from the table top for the sake of "balance".