49 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

[Khobai]

Agreed. The Jagermech is supposed to have paper thin armor. Seems silly to give it the same max armor as the Catapult.

They limited engines based on the stock engine. Armor should be limited in the same way.

[Trauglodyte]

You could do that but then you'd be back to running just stock mechs. Given how things have so quickly unraveled from the original mech design intent, PGI should just to enforcing stock builds with no modifications other than paint schemes and call it a day.

[ownka]

If you made it this way, nobody would play the jagermech. Ever. Armor is too valuable in practice. If I had to choose between a mech with 2 energy hardpoints and one with a real loadout but half the armor, I'd run around in my tanky *** double LPL mech any day of the week.

[Vermaxx]

Yes, it would definitely make mechs distinct.

Some would be worthless because their armor values were sub standard.

[SkyCake]

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.

i agree with stupid

[Zyllos]

ownka, on 19 March 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

If you made it this way, nobody would play the jagermech. Ever. Armor is too valuable in practice. If I had to choose between a mech with 2 energy hardpoints and one with a real loadout but half the armor, I'd run around in my tanky *** double LPL mech any day of the week.

I play my Trebuchet 1.5t (48 points) down in armor and I seem to do fine. While I think it is suicide to drop many tons of armor, I do not think it is suicide to do that if you think your mech will die anyways if you get into a brawl or close range.

[ownka]

Zyllos, on 19 March 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I play my Trebuchet 1.5t (48 points) down in armor and I seem to do fine. While I think it is suicide to drop many tons of armor, I do not think it is suicide to do that if you think your mech will die anyways if you get into a brawl or close range.

And I'm willing to guess that this armor was removed from your arms and/or legs. Reducing the CT armor is just a thing people don't do, and making different mechs have different armor would reduce the CT armor.

[Zyllos]

Actually, no.

I always balance out my armor loads.

If I could log in, I would tell you.

[FrostCollar]

I'd be fine with different armor amounts as quirks. Some mechs, like the Raven 2X, might make sense in having access to a slightly larger armor loadout.

However, severely restricting the armor a mech can carry sounds like it would doom it to obscurity.

[Bishop Steiner]

@Traug

Not sure how limiting total armor would limit one to just stock mechs. One of tue more irritating flaws, even on TT was how many designs basically just duplicated each other.

As for whether people would play, with less than max armor, I can't answer that. But if I had lighter armor, I know I would be more inclined to hang back and give support fire, which is what the jager was designed for. A lot of the armor addiction comes from the primary tactic being blob movement and facehugging. I have found that when sniping/supporting, one does best when one stays mobile, and waits until the scrappers are engaged to open fire, as you are less likely to call attention to yourself.

But whether people will ever learn that, is doubtful, so you are probably right. Another idea nixed, more than likely.

[Trauglodyte]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 March 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

@Traug

Not sure how limiting total armor would limit one to just stock mechs. One of tue more irritating flaws, even on TT was how many designs basically just duplicated each other.

I'm just saying that stock mechs were limited by armor so that they could fit in the weapons that they had. Mechs were designed to be short on armor because of the loadout and new designs were made, there after, to add more armor or reduce armor by changing out heatsinks, ammo, etc. Your concept is akin to just running stock mechs in that the level of armor allowed is less then max.

I don't think that armor restrictions need to be made. I think that you restrict the mechs based on loadout possabilities and engine sizes. This is something that isn't in game because PGI has given us free reign to do what we like (ie small lasers to PPCs, MGs to Gauss Rifles, 150kph light mechs, etc).

[FerretGR]

I appreciate and support the idea, ie. making the chassis different in some real way, but I know that if one of the mechs is made distinct by reducing its max armor, it'd be a mech I avoid. First thing I do in customizing my mechs is maximize armor, then aim for speed balanced with punch. That said, limiting the armor would add a couple of tons for engine or weapons... for me that's not desirable but that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

[shabowie]

No armor should remain based on tonnage as it is currently.

The engine limit based on stock engine size wasn't a good idea. It's why some mech types like Raven and Awesome have useless variants.

Edited by shabowie, 19 March 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[Sayyid]

This is actually one post that sounds like a good idea.

[SkyCake]

shabowie, on 19 March 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

No armor should remain based on tonnage as it s currently.

The engine limit based on stock engine size wasn't a good idea. It's why some mech types like Raven and Awesome have useless variants.

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...

[TheRulesLawyer]

I like it. Especially FF allowing you to go over the tonage limit. FF always seemed the poor cousin to Endosteel, and this makes it worthwhile again. (Aside from it being able to be refitted in the field unlike engines and structure, but that got tossed long ago)

I'd go even further and have them balance allowed armor per location by how big it is. You have tiny arms? You can't mount full armor there. CT a giant target? You might be able to mount more than TT values there.

[Bagheera]

-- nevermind, i must of missed something --

Anyway, I'd rather not go limiting chasis armor values below what they are for a tonnage class. Game already has enough problems with fundamentally useless variants as it is. Don't see this helping.

Edited by Bagheera, 19 March 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Budor]

Too much balance work. Also: EPIC FORUM QQ

TLDR: no

[Khanahar]

I like it conceptually (distinctiveness is good) but wouldn't this actually make the Jagermech problem worse?