Why are we using +1/-1 if players see xx% to hit?

[Prussian Havoc]

My small issue with it all is sometimes a modifier is a minus and a plus. See here:

On one side the arm modifier is a -1 but at the bottom it is a +1. I understand why each one is shown in the context of their row, but new players probably won't get it automatically. I also don't have any suggestions on how to standardize it, as they are both right.

I like the fact HBS is LAYERING out so very much information, the decision to do so is a good one... now comes the time where refinements and adjustments can better shape what players will find when they know enough to look for particular Mouse-Overs, tips and other information.

Sometimes the solution is in the presentation...

...why couldn’t “Arm Mounted” be annotated as “Arm Mounted +1 acc”?

 

[Amechwarrior]

I think the +1 refers to a +1 overall affect. Basically the +1 for Shot Modifier and +1 Acc is saying that Target Size (+2) Minus Arm Mounted (-1) equals an overall +1. That is why both +1s are orange.

That's how I understand it anyway.

Yes, each row taken alone everything makes sense if you know what is going on. What gets confusing is when you look at both rows at once. The top part is how extra difficult the shot is over the base, in this case +1 difficulty. The weapon stats row shows the added accuracy, which makes sense to show as a positive number. Just don't look at both fields at the same time and everything is solved!

 

[Chaon]

I think this sample looks a lot easier to understand for new players.

Players can easily see how the to hit % is modified by the shot modifier and the % that are used to calculate it.

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

Showing "+1 acc" as the final result is confusing, I agree. Should be something like "+1 difficulty to hit", as "+1 acc" sounds like actual bonus accuracy, while being the opposite.

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

I think this sample looks a lot easier to understand for new players.
View attachment 350166

Players can easily see how the to hit % is modified by the shot modifier and the % that are used to calculate it.

Sry 4 doublepost, but could not edit in this quote. The problem is the same as stated above, showing something like "+accuracy" is confusing. It still is whether it is percentages or numbers. While percentages might be faster to understand in general, I don't see numbers being a real problem after people understood how the system works. Might take 2-3 more matches, but well enough. But showing a malus as "+ accuracy" is counterintuitive.

 

[Chaon]

Sry 4 doublepost, but could not edit in this quote. The problem is the same as stated above, showing something like "+accuracy" is confusing. It still is whether it is percentages or numbers. While percentages might be faster to understand in general, I don't see numbers being a real problem after people understood how the system works. Might take 2-3 more matches, but well enough. But showing a malus as "+ accuracy" is counterintuitive.

The problem with the +/-1 is that they don't really mean anything to new players. Can you tell me how much a +2 shot modifier will adjust the to hit %? Now can a new player tell me that? Even after a few matches they will not understand how they are calculated, all they know is that +1 makes it harder to hit and -1 makes it easier. But not how they change the final % to hit.

To me, reading the modified picture I get: The weapon has a +5% accuracy modifier and having it in the arm a -5% to accuracy, the target is a small mech thus a +10% to hit it, thus the final adjustment is (-5% + 10%) = +5% + 5% = 10% to hit modifier giving you 85% chance to hit.

The shot modifier and the accuracy of the weapon is not the same number. They need to be added in to give a final to hit number I think.

Of course I may have over thought it and screwed it all up but my modified picture is a heck of a lot easier to understand how the final to hit number is arrived at.

 

[Windschreiter]

Shouldn't it read +5% for Arm mounted => better Chance and -10% for size => worse TH. Ideally some Base percentage Like 90% for close Range -10% for size +5% for Arm mounted = 85%. Would be more clear. (Rephrasing what others have posted in hopes of making the point clearer)

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

No, I can not, but the interface does show you your final "to hit" percentage. So I don't think that's that much of a problem, unless you start nerding around and try to understand how this number adds up. At that point, I am no longer concerned people get irritated by numbers instead of percentages. I may seem odd a bit, but maybe offers advantages I don't see now. In the end, I don't think that's the point. There is a number, it changes circumstancially, players will figure out how it works.

Naming the shot modifier "accuracy" is a problem in my opinion, because you expect higher accuracy to be better, not worse. It still confuses me sometimes, and I spent several hundreds of hours with the beta, still play it and find it to be really counterintuitive.

 

[Wanderer2142]

?

The problem with the +/-1 is that they don't really mean anything to new players. Can you tell me how much a +2 shot modifier will adjust the to hit %? Now can a new player tell me that? Even after a few matches they will not understand how they are calculated, all they know is that +1 makes it harder to hit and -1 makes it easier. But not how they change the final % to hit.

To me, reading the modified picture I get: The weapon has a +5% accuracy modifier and having it in the arm a -5% to accuracy, the target is a small mech thus a +10% to hit it, thus the final adjustment is (-5% + 10%) = +5% + 5% = 10% to hit modifier giving you 85% chance to hit.

The shot modifier and the accuracy of the weapon is not the same number. They need to be added in to give a final to hit number I think.

Of course I may have over thought it and screwed it all up but my modified picture is a heck of a lot easier to understand how the final to hit number is arrived at.

Inevitably, the question that will come up with presenting the actual percentage numbers is 'why is it 5% and 10%?', if another case is 5% and 7%. Simply providing the percentages doesn't give you enough information to backtrace how those percentages are arrived at.

With the +/- 1, you're basically providing y to f(x, y), where f(x, y) is some formula based on the base hit chance (x) and some percentile modifier (y). Since f(x, y) is in fact a family of equations, expecting the user to understand the family of equations may be what is oft called 'information overload'.

 

[Soldryn The Red]

I think this sample looks a lot easier to understand for new players.
View attachment 350166

Players can easily see how the to hit % is modified by the shot modifier and the % that are used to calculate it.

This is what I'm talking about right here. It doesn't matter WHAT each individual + is equal to. Just show exact numbers that directly relate to the final result.

DISCLAIMER: This whole thing was just something that popped into my head, I'm still really happy with the game.

 

[Want0n]

I said the same thing during beta on the old forums. It makes no sense mixing %s with integer modifiers in the UI. Its just confusing. Worst case is someone thinks they are %s when they are not - going to happen. Be a shame if it is not changed in the release.

 

[CarpeMortis]

The problem with the +/-1 is that they don't really mean anything to new players. Can you tell me how much a +2 shot modifier will adjust the to hit %? Now can a new player tell me that? Even after a few matches they will not understand how they are calculated, all they know is that +1 makes it harder to hit and -1 makes it easier. But not how they change the final % to hit.

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes the user is doing the whole to hit calculation themselves. Most of the time they dont' care about the exact % a modifier gives them, but rather which modifier is better.

In most cases they are comparing multiple options. +1 vs -1, or +1 vs +2 is a clean and clear comparison. And it scales up easier when you are considering multiple modifiers. "Do I move here and get a +1 and +1 or do I move here and get a +2 and -1?" is far less confusing than adding %

 

[HonorKnight]

The other thing is that, as mentioned in the thread, the +1s are on a regressive scale. Meaning the first +1 is 5%, +2 is 8% (degrading efficiency, basically) and +3 is 10% for example.

The way it works is the first 10 points of difficulty (or a negative net difficulty) are 5% each, then all points above 10 are 2.5% each.

 

[TaurianMerc]

Maybe I'm just too simple, but if you have the end result clearly displayed does it matter whether they use base numbers or percentages? As long as the casual gamer has it made clear negative=good, positive=bad if that's what HBS are going to use (personally I don't mind either way as long as it's made clear).
Again, I probably don't think like a normal person, as I'm not worried how the final number is arrived at (just like I'm not worried whether movement distance is in meters, feet, rigellian sand eels or whatever) when it is the final number that is important. If I wanted to fret over calculations I would crack the minis out and play tabletop

 

[Wanderer2142]

The way it works is the first 10 points of difficulty (or a negative net difficulty) are 5% each, then all points above 10 are 2.5% each.

I imagine that formula was used in the beta, do you not think it may have changed in a few ways since then? Cockpit mods and other modifiers added to the mix may have required a rebalancing of the scale. Especially if the addition of additional modifiers would make it trivial to point-blank LRM attacks.

 

[Amechwarrior]

I said the same thing during beta on the old forums. It makes no sense mixing %s with integer modifiers in the UI. Its just confusing. Worst case is someone thinks they are %s when they are not - going to happen. Be a shame if it is not changed in the release.

The problem is with the info @HonorKnight posted. A +1 isn't always worth the same amount and that's why they don't just use pure % on everything.

 

[snoopfrogg85]

Maybe I'm just too simple, but if you have the end result clearly displayed does it matter whether they use base numbers or percentages? As long as the casual gamer has it made clear negative=good, positive=bad if that's what HBS are going to use (personally I don't mind either way as long as it's made clear).
Again, I probably don't think like a normal person, as I'm not worried how the final number is arrived at (just like I'm not worried whether movement distance is in meters, feet, rigellian sand eels or whatever) when it is the final number that is important. If I wanted to fret over calculations I would crack the minis out and play tabletop

I think we must think the same as ultimately I would only care about the % to hit. The modifiers not being linear then makes this more of a calculation game.

Or... maybe that's the point. % for the casual gamer and the modifiers for those who want to number crunch/analyse?

 

[gruese]

While the whole thing doesn't bother me overmuch, I have to agree with a lot of the points in this thread. I think new players might be confused by this.

 

[stjobe]

New players won't be confused because they will never even see those +1s and -2s; they will look in the lower right where it says "AC/5 65%" and think "good enough" and hit the fire button. Or it says 45% and they try another move destination and see if they get a better % from there.

Other posters have done a good job of explaining why they are using +1 and -2 instead of +5% and -10%; +1 isn't always 5%, but it is always +1.

If a weapon has +1 accuracy, it is better than a weapon that doesn't have that bonus. Exactly how much better depends. It depends on the firing solution and the firing MechWarrior's Gunnery skill. Sometimes it's going to be one percentage and sometimes another, but it's always going to be more accurate than a weapon without bonus in the same situation.

Arguably, a +1 accuracy weapon is more easily understood than a +5% accuracy weapon, but that is perhaps only me; when I see a lone percentage sign I automatically think "percentage of what?"

 

[xtfoster]

Which doesn’t solve the underlying problem of confusing people when a particular action results in a 2% change in accuracy, while in a separate unit the very same action results in a 5% change.

It’s far easier to see DR kicking in (and know that it’s DR kicking in) when you can see both values.

I could give you the long explanation that all table-top gamers would (or at least should) know, but will instead say that a +1 is not always equal to another +1.
Example: Base to hit: 7 (on 2d6 or 58.33%), terrain modifier +1, movement (unit) modifier +1, movement (target) modifier +1. Modified to hit 10. In this case the first +1 changes the chance to hit to 8 (44.44% or -13.89%), the second +1 changes it to 9 (33.33% or an additional -11.11%), the final +1 changes it to 10 (25% or a 8.33%). So it depends on what that +1 is modifying what percentage the modifier is.