49 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Budor, on 19 March 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Too much balance work. Also: EPIC FORUM QQ

TLDR: no

not sure where the QQ is, but sure.

Anyhow, I appreciate the input from those who actually are interested in thinking outside the minmax progamer box and even if not in agreement see merit for finding ways to individualize each chassis.

[Budor]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

not sure where the QQ is, but sure.

Anyhow, I appreciate the input from those who actually are interested in thinking outside the minmax progamer box and even if not in agreement see merit for finding ways to individualize each chassis.

The QQ would come once your proposed change would be implemeted.

[Karyudo ds]

Budor, on 19 March 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

The QQ would come once your proposed change would be implemeted.

The QQ would come once anything was implemented or not no matter what it was. That's the internet period.

Anyway I don't really see it being a bad thing to limit armor modifications similar to engines. If a Jagermech couldn't max out on armor the same as a some other mechs for instance, it would be more inclined to be dakka-centric. I'm sure some would hate having they're "creativity" being limited but I don't think it would necessarily be all that bad.

[Budor]

Its allready the awesome of the heavy weight class hitbox wise. Lowering its armor even more would be an awfull idea.

[Khanahar]

Maybe the Jager should get extra torso twist and the armor limit together. Then the dynamic you'd have between the Jager and 'Phract would rely on more that just the missing actuator and the 5 fewer tons. Instead, you would have:
Jag:
++TorsoTwist, +Speed, better in run-and-gun scenarios, potential for more nimble close range combat (e.g. Urban)
'Phract:
+Arm Twist, ++Armor, +Tonnage, better for "stand and deliver" direct combat

'cause I want these chassis balanced for when faction wars come up. Don't want those Liao's getting the wrong ideas. (I know, both of the better CTF variants are Davion, but there's a good chance they'll count as Liao for faction wars. For what 'mechs each side ought to have, see http://mwomercs.com/...03#entry1931003)

[Gaan Cathal]

Honestly, I think that a limiting of armour to a +/- % of stock values in the same way as engine rating would have some merit. To use the Jenner and Raven lines as an example, the stock versions have similar firepower, with the Jenner having a slight advantage, the Raven has less speed and the Jenner has less armour. In MWO the firepower difference has increased slightly, but we can ignore that for the moment since it's a byproduct of the hardpoint system. However, the Jenner has kept it's speed advantage (a considerable one in the case of the 'combat' Ravens) but also gained the ability to fit the same armour as a Raven.

In short, if the Jenner was restricted in it's armour the same way the Raven is restricted in it's speed, then there would actually be some degree of choice between, say, the -2X and the -F.

Obviously with the ECM/SSRM issues, and with the -4X hampered by the state of MGs this wouldn't be a panacea, but the principle is sound.

SkyCake, on 19 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

other ravens "blow" because the 3L has been so broken, but that is changing patch by patch... 2 weeks ago, they atarted taking laser damage, today they are going to start taking big damage...

No, they blow because they are restricted to a 245 rating engine, with less hardpoints and the same armour as the Jenners they compete with.

[MustrumRidcully]

I already strongly dislike the engine nerf, so no, I don't think that would be a good idea. It will likely just lead to some mechs not being taken because their armour is laughable and they become unplayable.

[RG Notch]

I think it would be cool if we could choose our armor amounts up to the max allowed by chassis weight and decide if we want to choose more armor or speed or weaponry....wait we can already do that?
People still want to remove the mechlab, well they don't come right out and say that because it's not popular so they have different spin. Still adds up to the same thing no matter how it's packaged.

[verybad]

It's not a bad idea, but I think in practice it would end up making some mechs simply not used. I think some diffrent stuff like bonuses to sensors/steathyness, or perhaps small bunses to heat dissipation might work better.

Also, bit different idea, but perhaps faster reloads from ammo in the same location, slower if it's farther away from, slightly faster recharge for energy in the torso (closer to the engine)

I'm not talking about big tweaks here, maybe 5% at most. Just enough to give a different feel, but not huge changes.

Edited by verybad, 20 March 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

RG Notch, on 20 March 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I think it would be cool if we could choose our armor amounts up to the max allowed by chassis weight and decide if we want to choose more armor or speed or weaponry....wait we can already do that?

No, we can't. I can't fit an XL300 in my RVN-2X to keep up with a JR7-F, but he can fit max chassis-weight armour to be as tough as me. So, no. I can choose to have Armour, Speed and Weaponry or....Armour and Weaponry. Wonder why the Jenner-series dominated light gameplay prior to ECM/SSRM broke?

[Redmond Spiderhammer]

the problem to this approach is that they are taking stock designs from TT. Live play and TT are totally different animals and mechs that are viable in TT at a certain armor value would not necessarily work in the live game. I'd rather see them adjust effectiveness on certain weapon systems to make a chassis just work a little better at its designed role vs a completely didfferent one (ie fire support vs brawling). I'm always very hesitant to hamper customization options as it really is part of the core BT experience

[Cairbre]

I think PGI broke from this path a long time ago. If they had kept TT armor values, matches would have been half as long, and lucky shots from Ac20s and Gauss rifles would decapitate mechs. Reducing the mechs armor at this point would be akin to halving everything's life- and while many players would have been fine with it if they had started that way, going backwards to it would cause the fury of a thousand suns to erupt in the forums. Look at all of the complaints about how much shorter people are living from LRMS.... and now imagine if literally everyone was having those instant death experiences. The mods would run out of locks, and break their bansticks.

[MaddMaxx]

With every seemingly good idea there comes one basic question.

Would you drive any Chassis with the "Armor Light" quirk, versus one without, as the opposition on the same battlefield?

[Fuzzbox]

In my view the "named" mechs should have engine and armor locked to the books.

The problem is if they do this there is no way to create your own mech, which would create an outcry by people who don't want to play mechs with drawbacks. One idea would to create "generic" mechs of each weight class (you just need one for each class as we are looking at the min/maxers) which would have a free loadout, but that could be done by another game if you ask me.

the perks and drawbacks of the named mechs are what makes battletech a fund game, and who really enjoyed plaing the lazerboats of MW4? In my view PGI had the perfect idea to keep the perks and drawbacks as this was to be a team warfare game, not a min/max personal headshot game which it has become to an extent.

I still enjoy being outclassed in the very few 8v8 games I can muster, there are some good teams out there, but the daily games have become nothing but min/maxing with slight differences and people dropping maps because they brought the wrong mech.

see you on the flip side.

[LordBraxton]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Possibly an answer to a question no one has asked (well, eclxcept me, but I tend to have odd things bouncing around my skull)

Anyhow, I was thinking, basically there is little the Jagermech can do that the Phract 4X can't do better, with the exception of 1 more crit per arm, and a lil speed. And other mecha seem to duplicate each other, too.

Would setting Max Armor per variant In a way similar to the Max Engine add more individual quirks to each chassis? for instance the Jagermech was engineered with paper thin armor. We all know pretty much everyone will max it instantly, thus removing one of the characteristics of the mech. With something with as many complex joints as a mech, u don't just slap more armor on, it actually needs to be re-engineered to spread weight and stress, while not hindering motion. So for instance (random example here) maybe each chassis variant is only capable of adding lets sys, +25% to their armor. So JM6-S COULD GO FROM 6 TONs, or 192 base armor points to 7.5 tons or 250 armor points.
thus, one could abuse the ballistic boating, but it would remain the glass cannot it was engineered to be.

Not an idea the minmax army will embrace, probably, and maybe not even a good idea. I've been toying with it for some time. I also think the simple rework (while non canon) to make Ferro armor viable, is allow it to go above the "max allowance" of normal armor, so instead of the Jagermech having 250 max, with Ferro it could now mount up to 1.12x that or around 280.

Just think it would make Ferro more mwo viable than it currently is, and by have armor limits it would add one more distinguishing feature between chassis and variants. Or it could be a real bad idea.

ABUSE?!?! BALLISTICS?!?!

The jagermech isnt even good, with full armor its never going to replace the catapult or phract why would you want to nerf it into worthlessness already?!

More than 2 ballistics on a mech is just stupid, (other than 3UAC5s) AC2s\AC5s suck and theres no way to bring 3 gauss\ac20s soooo

[Super Mono]

If you're building an army for a tabletop game then it's fine to have mechs with paperthin armor because they're either cheap or have other benefits that you can compensate for the weakness with other units. This way as a whole you as a player are not putting all your eggs in one very weak basket.

In an action game you only have the one mech. Players will take what lets them survive and do their best and a Jagermech with stock armor values will not do that at all.

[3rdworld]

SkyCake, on 19 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

where were you during closed beta??? engine limits were absolutely necessary, end of story!

i agree, that the 8r,8q,8t,8v could use 325 max engine limit... but thats about it... 9 SL hunchbacks running around at 130kph was a nightmare!

other ravens "blow" because the 3L has been so broken, but that is changing patch by patch... 2 weeks ago, they atarted taking laser damage, today they are going to start taking big damage...

Looking at the current game.

Where the Raven reigns supreme in its fast mech mastery. Would the 130kph Hunch be so bad?

[Bishop Steiner]

@Kayudu

The said part is, that people tend to use their "creativity" to basically recreate what is already being done on different chassis, hence negating the point of creating the new chassis. ATM, I would bet 75% oglf Jagers are essentially duplicating the common K2 and DakkaPhract builds.

People don't get that adding armor ain't as simple as bolting on a couple more plates. Not getting into the engineering of how modern armor works, but just how it interests with a mecha actuators, both from mobility and what they were rated to move, is pretty substantial.

[Vassago Rain]

Budor, on 19 March 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Its allready the awesome of the heavy weight class hitbox wise. Lowering its armor even more would be an awfull idea.

But muh distinct mech identity!

Bishop Steiner, on 20 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

@Kayudu

The said part is, that people tend to use their "creativity" to basically recreate what is already being done on different chassis, hence negating the point of creating the new chassis. ATM, I would bet 75% oglf Jagers are essentially duplicating the common K2 and DakkaPhract builds.

People don't get that adding armor ain't as simple as bolting on a couple more plates. Not getting into the engineering of how modern armor works, but just how it interests with a mecha actuators, both from mobility and what they were rated to move, is pretty substantial.

No, you actually layer more diamond and/or steel onto the mech. It's a very simple process, which is why it's the easiest thing to repair and modify.

[Eddrick]

Adding Armor restrictions would make Mechs more distinct. However, like some mentiond. I would likly make some Mechs not viable for competitive play.

Making FF Armor add more to the max Armor allowed would be nice.

Catapult-K2 has less stock Armor compared to what any of the Awesomes have. Given't my playstyle is a defensive sniper. This would make we want to use an Awesome more. Been considering it anyway. The Awesome is less likly to be headshot