32 replies to this topic

[Bunko]

As long as I can have a 99% dodge stat I'm good... what game we talking about?

[Unbound Inferno]

Bunko, on 22 July 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

As long as I can have a 99% dodge stat I'm good... what game we talking about?

Drive a Spider. I think its dodge rate is 98% tho.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'm still trying to process how the Damage Resistance can be applied during a match, if anything maybe as a counter to specific amounts of incoming damage above a certain value?

For example, just to illustrate how I'm trying to process the idea, a Commando could have a resistance threshold set to 32 for the CT. So that if it gets hit with an Alpha of 40 damage, then that 40 gets reduced by a %; say 80% of that damage can be applied at once in the section that gets hit.

So that would mean that the 40 damage Alpha becomes 32 damage in this example, still enough to strip the armor and expose internals.

The idea could be a way to scale damage to a target aside from messing with heat or another factor, hopefully without directly impacting player skill in the process.

And this is only a thought experiment to see if the idea could be applied in such a way, the numbers can be whatever works to improve the game if the idea could help.




Also, recently I've been mulling over a separate idea, related to a way to tweak armor and provide trade-off options to players, so I hope it's okay to add it to this discussion.

The idea is twofold, to raise the Max Armor value by the amount separating front and back torso sections from sharing armor points between them and a slight tweak to Internal Structure values.

So for example, a Commando currently has 24 points to share been Front and Back Side Torsos and 32 for front and back CT.

The idea is to set the front side torsos to a cap to the full value of 24 and the rear side to half, so 12 for the Commando. CT would then be 32 front and 16 back. So that change would increase the max armor to 218 from 178, an increase of 40 armor points.


My question is if this can be applied would something like this fit with the lore;
and do all mech weights get the same treatment?

Here is a Chart brainstorming how the idea would look applied to other mechs, by tons, currently in MWO (just missing 20 ton mechs and I left in 55 ton by accident).

Spoiler

So in order to gain a benefit from the raised Max, you still need to spend on tonnage to pull it off. And if my math is right it comes to a ~22% to 24% potential boost in armor, and an increase in needed tons from 1.3 to 4.6 to reach the higher max value for the different weights.

Also, with the idea there is room to provide mech specific buffs.

For example, the four Hunchback variants (4G, 4H, 4J and 4P) could have an asymmetrical distribution, that gives more armor to the front right torso and the right internal structure, since it has more surface area and is bigger than the left side.

For example,
Armor Values

• RT _ 60, CT _ 64, LT _ 48
  
• RRT 12, RCT 32, RLT 24

Internal Structure Values

• RT 48, CT 48, LT 24

And for quick reference here is a chart calculating how it would look adding the armor in 0.5 increments up to 24 tons.

Spoiler

Last idea with current Internal Structure Values what if we provide like a 25% boost to most of the mech from current numbers? Again it's just brain storming and can be restricted to certain classes as needed, if the idea could help.

Here is a chart of what I mean.

Spoiler

I wasn't sure about the head, but adding 3 seemed okay there.

And numbers can always be changed, since the idea is to improve gameplay, hopefully without causing further imbalances. I guess I can also make a thread, but it would be about Armor also, so I'll wait to hear from the OP or a mod if I should do that or not.

[Khobai]

I think a convergence fix is less complicated and makes the game more like battletech. This is just an overcomplicated fix for a simple problem.

[Unbound Inferno]

Khobai, on 23 July 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

I think a convergence fix is less complicated and makes the game more like battletech. This is just an overcomplicated fix for a simple problem.

That is comparatively simple, PGI won't do it.

Praetor Shepard, on 23 July 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

<Edited for size>

That could work too.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 23 July 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

I dont think you have to implement whole new system to solve armor or internal structure distribution issue.
There are other ways you can do that with current system very effectively

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Big Giant Head, on 23 July 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

I dont think you have to implement whole new system to solve armor or internal structure distribution issue.
There are other ways you can do that with current system very effectively

So how?

[Gaan Cathal]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Yeah, but the idea needs testing more than just brainstorming to see the result.

In theory it works.. in reality? I dunno.

But its not like Assaults and Heavies become instantly unstoppable either. Most deaths Lights do with that are through rear armor coring - and mediums should have an upper edge in mobility still leaving them at an advantage.

This just helps mitigate the main bigger fights a bit better. I hope anyway.

The problem is the game is currently weighted in favour of higher tonnage, and this simply adds an extra incentive to go heavier. I could see this as a replacement for armour, but I doubt we'll ever do away with the ablative system (and we'd need a significant internals boost to go with it I imagine).

And for the record, most of my light mech deaths are not rear hits, by any stretch of the imagination - a 35 ton mech has a max of 48 hitpoints in the leg, and effectively less in the side torso since you have to put some on the rear (and if you didn't, it'd be 48hp still). There's plenty of 40-damage pinpoint alpha out there and then all it takes is a couple of laser grazes and you're a wreck.

[Big Giant Head]

Praetor Shepard, on 23 July 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

So how?

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Big Giant Head, on 23 July 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

I kinda like the idea you have there for calculating Crit Slots based on the mech's shape. Just gotta factor actuators and other permanent fixtures in mechs compared to stock loadouts with a change like that.

And I guess that the back and legs would stay as we currently have them for Crits and Armor.

[Big Giant Head]

Praetor Shepard, on 24 July 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

I kinda like the idea you have there for calculating Crit Slots based on the mech's shape. Just gotta factor actuators and other permanent fixtures in mechs compared to stock loadouts with a change like that.

And I guess that the back and legs would stay as we currently have them for Crits and Armor.

I took only "free" crit slots into consideration so actuators/gyro isnt problem.

Yeah, brain and legs stay as current

[Fooooo]

This sort of thing seems like it would fit nicely with the mech quirk system already in place.


To me, the quirks are underused and should be much more varied. Having different variants with different torso turning ranges etc is all well and good, but it just seems like the work put into the quirk system is being wasted.

Adding something like the OP's %dmg reduction as part of a quirk for certain sections of certain mechs that would benefit would be nice imo. (as another poster already suggested. ala the HBKs hunch, or the dragons huge CT would get a small dmg reduction etc)

You could add tons of these types of things into the quirk system imo.

%Dmg reduction,
%Dmg increase (make some sections "weaker" if needed)
%speed
%Heat dissipation
%Heat increase for X weapon
%Heat decrease for X weapon.........the list goes on and on.

[Big Giant Head]

Fooooo, on 24 July 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:

This sort of thing seems like it would fit nicely with the mech quirk system already in place.


To me, the quirks are underused and should be much more varied. Having different variants with different torso turning ranges etc is all well and good, but it just seems like the work put into the quirk system is being wasted.

What differs one variant from another are hardponits, hitbox size (in some cases), and engine cap
What differs one chassis from another are hardpoints tonnage, twist, size,...., everything

problem is that variants arent different enough in most cases and reason is bad hardpoint system configuration that existed right from begining of this cheese game and they didnt do any move or change on that part.