24 replies to this topic

[GateKeeper York]

I was thinking over the weekend the games I enjoy the most are where the combat is a little more drawn out, mainly experienced when the shots don't just core me; i.e. someone picks off:

-my arms, then
-side torso, then finally
-kills me.

Would it alter game balance if centre torso armour capacity was increase by 20% - meaning less quick kills but without just boosting armor globally

Edited by GateKeeper York, 29 April 2013 - 04:19 AM.

[Boogie Man]

The problem is probably not the armor, but the weapon dps being too high and convergance allowing pinpoint focus of said dps.

[Roughneck45]

I mean, you could I guess, but any more armor increases just sound like a buff to lights IMO.

Their speed makes the armor doubly effective. Whats one more shot on an Atlas CT when he is slow as molases and you have more armor as well. One more shot on a light in the circle jerk of doom? Thats a bit more daunting.

Edited by Roughneck45, 29 April 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[AlmightyAeng]

Tried bringing this up a few weeks ago. Same comments/voting trends. Most people said no...a couple commented, then it devolved into a discussion about convergence.

Convergence is definitely an opportunity to fix part of the game...but just because all your damage isn't in one place doesn't mean you're going to stop targeting JUST the center torso. With a side torso or arm or leg being one alpha away from destroying a CT instead, there's no incentive to aim for anything but the CT.

[EvilCow]

I would like more freedom in allocating the available armor on the various sections, the total amount would not change but the allocation could be more flexible.

It does not really make sense that there is an hard limit in armor allocation.

[Joseph Mallan]

From personal experience on the rifle range, bullets don't always go where you aim them. If they did I'd have been putting 10 out of 10 bullets in the head at 500m.

[Corvus Antaka]

the big issue right now is the "lock arms to torso" which has further increased pinpoint aim ability with no real drawback - especially for snipers and people that dont need to torso twist much in the first place.

[AlmightyAeng]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 29 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

the big issue right now is the "lock arms to torso" which has further increased pinpoint aim ability with no real drawback - especially for snipers and people that dont need to torso twist much in the first place.

Respectfully, I disagree. All that does is lower the speed your reticle moves, since your arms are then limited by torso speed. If you move your arms unlinked your torso will follow anyway...it removes a little thinking...but taking out 'arm lock' isn't going to eliminate the issue. Note even remotely.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 29 April 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[MrVop]

Another way to combat pinpoint is adding more divisions to the armor. Sure your paper doll will look different and we all hate change... But if we decide the ct into say, 4 sections instead of one, pin pointing damage becomes a tad more difficult. Just a thought.

[Roughneck45]

MrVop, on 29 April 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Another way to combat pinpoint is adding more divisions to the armor. Sure your paper doll will look different and we all hate change... But if we decide the ct into say, 4 sections instead of one, pin pointing damage becomes a tad more difficult. Just a thought.

Once again though, massive buff to lights, small buff to larger mechs.

[MrVop]

Roughneck45, on 29 April 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

Once again though, massive buff to lights, small buff to larger mechs.

Not really. Each spot will be so close together on a light that it would make them live a little longer. But not a massive buff. Legs is where lights are weak, and those will remain the same.

[AlmightyAeng]

Splitting up the CT into parts could conceivably be a light 'mech buff. It really depends on how 'destruction' is handled. If you blow up one part of a CT, does that destroy the whole CT? If so, then splitting a light 'mechs CT armor into 4 pieces and dividing it among them makes it significantly EASIER to one-shot them.

I disagree with your earlier comment on % increase involving a huge light mech buff, too.

Just increasing CT by a set % isn't necessarily a light 'mech buff, though. I'd actually expect to hear more people complaining I that it's an assault buff.

Percentage-wise, the increase to lights is negligible. If you hit with something big, it's still going to cripple that section.

+25% to a light 'mech CT is FAR less than +25% to an assault 'mech...and with weapon damage remaining unchanged in the equation I see it favoring heavier 'mechs more.

Edited by Ghost Badger, 29 April 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Bunko]

Problem is not Center Torso armor it's the amount of overall armor. MWO allows 3 times more shots allowed in 10 seconds than Table Top rules and MWO only gives 2 times more armor than Table Top, while keeping the same weapon damages.

Edited by Bunko, 29 April 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[MrVop]

Right it will be a buff, but once again tiny, the chance of you spreading your damage over 4 pieces of armor on a light before you core him is highly unlikely, but on a bigger mech it will prolong the fight and only the über eat of the pinpoint snipers will be able to circumvent it.
We could also add an ape effect to the sections, like if you get hit in one of the three spots, the other 3 spots also take half damage, or something, I just think we would have more fun builds and fun fights if we had a better hit box spread.

[AlmightyAeng]

If you increase overall armor, all you're doing is increasing the length of fights.

People will STILL aim at ONLY the CT. It'll just take longer.

I think the point of the OP is that if you JUST increase CT armor, you're making it take longer to core out a 'mech, which suddenly makes taking out a leg, or an arm faster by comparison, and more attractive as a battle tactic.

[MrVop]

agreed. I just always feel we need a more split up armor set up.

[MustrumRidcully]

Boogie Man, on 29 April 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

The problem is probably not the armor, but the weapon dps being too high and convergance allowing pinpoint focus of said dps.

The armour ratios between different hit locations is a problem.

One of the best case scenarios of fighting a Splatapult was to take off its ears first. At least that was what many suggested. But if you actually go through the math - how much damage can a Splatapult inflict if you take out its arms first, and how much damage can it inflict if all shots go to the CT, you find out that the arm-method gives you only a 20 % difference (and you still need to kill the Splatapult afterwards, unless you want to risk it capping your base or something like that). And this is pretty much the ideal case - a mech that has all weapons in its arms. A mech having guns in the side torso also will mean that going for the CT will be the best way to kill him. And most mechs have weapons in arms and torso sides.

If you really want it to be a tactical choice which hit locations to engage and aim for at all times, we need different armour ratios. Mind you - different ratios. Not necssarily more armour. MAybe we need that too, maybe we need less damage, less burst damage, or whatever. But regardless of how much damage mechs can dish out - with the current armour ratios, going for the CT is usually the preferable and safest way to defeat an opponent. And that looks like weak game design to me.

[GateKeeper York]

I have read this with interest, some good points raised.

My additional thoughts are:

-that armour had to be raised compared to to TT as there are no dice involved, just player skill which can far exceed the sometimes cruel fickleness of lady chance
-my favourite games are those that have drawn out combat, just feels so hollow when you get sniped within seconds of engaging and your out
-I play both lights and assaults - team play is the key (e.g. speicalist mechs need to be protected, assaults can take on most others except fast lights)
-maybe I just don't like games that take less time to play than match make, load and start

Thanks sofar

Edited by GateKeeper York, 30 April 2013 - 03:12 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Actualy the Center Armor are just 20% of the overall coverage.(including internal structure)
So you have to kill 20% of a Mech to kill it.

Fist step is to know what is the right amount of armor...make it to strong...new player will have some serious problems...(althoug i had them during CB too)

Instead of simple raising or lowering a Mechs armor... you should make a assertion:
I say to kill a Mech you have at least to shot 30% of his armor. (no headshot)

A Mech could be killed by the destrucion of his legs or the CT.
So we have actual 20% coverage for the CT and 30% coverage for both legs.

So the CT should have slightly more armor as both legs in sum.

The same principle should be used for the arms and side torso

So we could have following distribution:

Center Torso 32%
Legs: 14%
Side Toso 14%
Arms: 6%

You can modify it to increase armor at the sides (to make XL less vulnerable)
CenterTorso 30%
Legs: 13%
Side Torso 16%
Arms 6%

However to leg - and disarm a Mech will have better benefit

[Liberator]

Bunko, on 29 April 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Problem is not Center Torso armor it's the amount of overall armor. MWO allows 3 times more shots allowed in 10 seconds than Table Top rules and MWO only gives 2 times more armor than Table Top, while keeping the same weapon damages.

If this is true then just lower the rate of fire; or keep the rate of fire and lower the damage.