35 replies to this topic

[Willie Sauerland]

Ghost Badger, on 17 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I think a couple people may have misunderstood why I'd want it increased.

I'm not complaining about dying too easily due to a crit CT. I pilot Atlases and XL Jagermechs, and I do just fine in terms of survivabilty.

I'm disappointed that MWO is all about destroying the CT or sometimes the side torsos, with no real benefit to targeting arms and/or legs first. The point has been made in other threads, and I agree, that you can core out a mech in the same amount of time it takes to go for a leg, or for an arm. Since that's the case...why BOTHER crippling a mech when the same damage and maybe an extra shot will core one out instead?

I'd like to see a slugfest that has incentive to go for arms and legs instead of piling it all onto the CT. That's all. I think it'd be more fun. The other thoughts I posted were additional results I thought might occur if the idea were implemented.

Part of the CT issue,

is simply the size of the mechs.

For example,

the Awesome is very easy to core.

And if I can core him faster

than taking him apart

limb from limb

then that is less damage

it can do to me or my team.

Even in the army,

we were taught to aim

"center of mass"

which is the chest area (CT)

because it was the hardest

to miss...

[Ansel]

Willie Sauerland, on 17 April 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Part of the CT issue,

is simply the size of the mechs.

For example,

the Awesome is very easy to core.

And if I can core him faster

than taking him apart

limb from limb

then that is less damage

it can do to me or my team.

Even in the army,

we were taught to aim

"center of mass"

which is the chest area (CT)

because it was the hardest

to miss...

Ansel, on 17 April 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Keep the armor sections and the point totals for those sections, weapons would then only deal damage in a footprint to those sections instead of dealing damage to the whole section.

Each weapon would then have it's own footprint, for example the AC-20 would have the largest footprint of the balistic weapons, and the MG having the smallest footprint, missle and spread type weapons would have very large footprints to go with their lower damage so they generate a lot of overlaping area damage, also making them better for splasing damage into areas that the armor was already breached.

If this were implimented fights would take quite a while longer, so I would probly drop armor point totals to 125-150% of TT values instead of 200%.

This solves most of that problem by making a player need to cluster shots tightly to breach armor in one spot. A mech with huge CT/RT/LT sections would have a lot of space to hopfully spread damage to, making them a viable alternative to mechs with a smaller profile.

[ElLocoMarko]

VonRunnegen, on 17 April 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

How about no target-based weapon convergence at all. Weapons just always converge at the max distance they can still do 100% damage. So long range weapons up close will be spread all over the shop unless fired individually, but at the limit are still as good as now. Beyond the 100% range they then are suffering both a damage drop and a grouping drop.

I like it. And to be honest it seems way more realistic. How are my torso-mounted AC20 adjusting for convergence. Is my torso flexing? Do I have individual (massive) motor mounts which take zero tonnage and never get damaged by recoil?

This idea is a shiny one.

[Walk]

Ansel, on 17 April 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

It would take the same ammout of shots, or less, than it does now.

It would however require you to have the ability to aim, and place shots in a tight cluster.

The AC-20 wouldn't need as tight of a cluster, PPC and laser weapons would.



Incorrect, every enemy worth their salt just shoots your mech in the nads and wonders why you started dancing instead of trying to deal damage. Gotta love those huge painted CT sections that damage the entire section no matter where you shoot lololol.

Explain how doubling center torso armor, as the OP suggested, could possibly take the same amount of damage from ballistics/missiles without changing damage values?

[Jace Lancer]

Walk, on 17 April 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Explain how doubling center torso armor, as the OP suggested, could possibly take the same amount of damage from ballistics/missiles without changing damage values?

He was referring to the current "torso twist to spread damage" tactic

[Walk]

Jace Lancer, on 17 April 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

He was referring to the current "torso twist to spread damage" tactic

Then why was he quoting my post, which was directed towards the OP?

[Willie Sauerland]

Ansel, on 17 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

This solves most of that problem by making a player need to cluster shots tightly to breach armor in one spot. A mech with huge CT/RT/LT sections would have a lot of space to hopfully spread damage to, making them a viable alternative to mechs with a smaller profile.

Yes,

but I imagine that

would be very intense

on the engine being used.

We have enough problems

with various components

crashing now as it is...

If this were implemented

on the server side,

it could potentially create

more lag than people

experience today.

[Ansel]

Walk, on 17 April 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

Explain how doubling center torso armor, as the OP suggested, could possibly take the same amount of damage from ballistics/missiles without changing damage values?

Sorry, thought you were responding to me. I derped lol.

Jace Lancer, on 17 April 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

He was referring to the current "torso twist to spread damage" tactic

Nope, wrong thing, maby, i'm still confused now myself, so uh, yea.

[Jace Lancer]

Walk, on 17 April 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Then why was he quoting my post, which was directed towards the OP?

You were quoted first.he responded to that.then quoted someone else, and responded with the gonad shooting comment.

Refer to original post #18. I think you may have missed something since this forum seems to try removing nested quotes when quoting someone.

Edited by Jace Lancer, 17 April 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Willie Sauerland, on 17 April 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Part of the CT issue,

is simply the size of the mechs.

For example,

the Awesome is very easy to core.

And if I can core him faster

than taking him apart

limb from limb

then that is less damage

it can do to me or my team.

Even in the army,

we were taught to aim

"center of mass"

which is the chest area (CT)

because it was the hardest

to miss...

Hmmm...so if it's so obviously the easiest target, why bother loading up more armor on it compared to the rest? That would make NO sense.

Of course it's an easier target It's huge. Wouldn't that argument mean you should protect it more? Load more armor on it. Still an easy target, still able to be cored, but suddenly taking out a leg first so everyone can team up on it easier, or taking out an arm so you're taking less fire while you kill it makes more sense.

I'm sensing the idea is getting little traction, but I still think it'd be far more interesting and fun.

[Ansel]

Willie Sauerland, on 17 April 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Yes,

but I imagine that

would be very intense

on the engine being used.

We have enough problems

with various components

crashing now as it is...

If this were implemented

on the server side,

it could potentially create

more lag than people

experience today.

Yea, it could cause problems in the short term, but adding depth and the need to actualy be able to aim and cluster shots tightly would benefit the game greatly in my opinion.

As for lag, I doubt it would cause more lag, the total data rates going both up and down shouldn't be any more intensive on the system than it is when tracking damage now, although HSR would need to be fully implimented and working correctly before my idea could really even be seriously looked at.

[Borogar]

I agree with other posters who have said not to stand there without turning your shoulder towards your attacker.

That said I have also died without a single point of damage done to any other location other than my CT. I think what would be better than doubling ct armor is just make the CT hit box slightly snaller. If the torsos are three even stripes say just make the middle slightly smaller.

If this is a problem that even really needs to be addressed.

[Willie Sauerland]

Ansel, on 17 April 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

Yea, it could cause problems in the short term, but adding depth and the need to actualy be able to aim and cluster shots tightly would benefit the game greatly in my opinion.

As for lag, I doubt it would cause more lag, the total data rates going both up and down shouldn't be any more intensive on the system than it is when tracking damage now, although HSR would need to be fully implimented and working correctly before my idea could really even be seriously looked at.

That seems reasonable.

Borogar, on 17 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I agree with other posters who have said not to stand there without turning your shoulder towards your attacker.

That said I have also died without a single point of damage done to any other location other than my CT. I think what would be better than doubling ct armor is just make the CT hit box slightly snaller. If the torsos are three even stripes say just make the middle slightly smaller.

If this is a problem that even really needs to be addressed.

Then people

with XL engines

will complain

and want the same

treatment for their

side torsos...

Adding armor

or shrinking the hit boxes

really doesn't fix

the fundamental issue...

[Ansel]

Borogar, on 17 April 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I agree with other posters who have said not to stand there without turning your shoulder towards your attacker.

That said I have also died without a single point of damage done to any other location other than my CT. I think what would be better than doubling ct armor is just make the CT hit box slightly snaller. If the torsos are three even stripes say just make the middle slightly smaller.

If this is a problem that even really needs to be addressed.

Thy nuts were truly shot many times by thine enemy.

[AlmightyAeng]

Willie Sauerland, on 17 April 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

That seems reasonable.

Then people

with XL engines

will complain

and want the same

treatment for their

side torsos...

Adding armor

or shrinking the hit boxes

really doesn't fix

the fundamental issue...

They can complain, but they shouldn't be getting more armor there. They're choosing to use a bigger engine that extends into the smaller portions of a torso. As it is, too much benefit is gained from XL's without enough of a loss.

[JuiceKeeper]

ElLocoMarko, on 17 April 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

I like it. And to be honest it seems way more realistic. How are my torso-mounted AC20 adjusting for convergence. Is my torso flexing? Do I have individual (massive) motor mounts which take zero tonnage and never get damaged by recoil?

This idea is a shiny one.

amazing idea and quite realistic. when u think how u setup distance on collimator on normal weapons u shoot them on certain distance so u know where aproximately u got middle.