64 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

[Insert Sten No pic here] to Quadruple Armor.

My first thought is to reduce our Heat Capacity.

• I'd cut the bonus 30 in half to 15 (just like the original scale going from 0 to 14 to the first shutdown possibility)

• And either make all Heat Sinks (SHS and DHS alike) to increase capacity by 1.0 or less (even reduce that to zero).

Then, I'd rather explore this idea: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Or if not that way, I'd like to look at splitting up the current shared Armor setup we have with our torso sections, not just upping CT armor alone or only buffing Internal HP.

I originally posted the idea here, so adding a link and spoiler describing the way I was thinking about how to boost Armor and make the torso sections separate from each other.

The added armor capacity could then make the choice be between that extra ton of ammo, heat sink or raising armor to the new higher max, in theory.

Spoiler

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 potential max armor to 218 from 178, a possible increase of 40 armor points.



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.

[HeavyRain]

No no no, 8x armor is the sweet spot.
These are huge armored machines of doom, anything less than 8x armor makes them look like they are made out of cardboard and 30-minute matches have been in everybody's wishlist anyway.
8x armor, twice as good as 4x armor.

[Ser Barristan]

How do you address the fact that mediums' and lights' firepower no longer would be competitive against heavier mechs? All of a sudden an Atlas would have as much armour in the rear torso as it previously had in the front. Even if a 50 tonner gets the drop on a Assault mech, with only 30-50 damage to fling at 300 plus armour it would be a joke.

[Swervedriver]

Ser Barristan, on 05 September 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

How do you address the fact that mediums' and lights' firepower no longer would be competitive against heavier mechs? All of a sudden an Atlas would have as much armour in the rear torso as it previously had in the front. Even if a 50 tonner gets the drop on a Assault mech, with only 30-50 damage to fling at 300 plus armour it would be a joke.

This is where thiings get interesting.

The medium mech that gets the drop on an assault will have to have learned some lessons from the tutorial and the testing grounds.

The description of Assault Mechs on the main website:

The giants of the battlefield, the 80-100 ton Assault BattleMechs are the firepower kings of the battlefield. Sheering off armor and punching hole through components are what the Assault BattleMech is all about. Speed and agility are almost comical when it comes to configuring an Assault BattleMech but when it comes to armor and weapon systems, there is nothing funny about what they'll be bringing to the fray. An Assault BattleMech is something to be feared when one on one and when supported by friendly units, it will become your worst nightmare.

The current state of the game allows a Jenner or even a spider to roll up behind your Atlas take out the engine in 3 shots. Personally, this just doesn't make sense and certainly doesn't fit the spirit of the description above.

Conversely, with higher armor values, lights and mediums would have a better defined role. No longer would they be torn apart in a matter of seconds...They would have more opportunities to escape and return to a fight. Stick and move. As it is today, it's stick once or twice and die. (Unless you're a spider pilot, lol)

An Atlas shouldn't fall apart in 2 or 3 shots to the back. Sorry, but that's just not how it works in tabletop, nor how it should work in this game, and that's definitely not how it works when you read the BattleTech novels.

[MustrumRidcully]

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Exactly.

-heat finally becoming an issue to deal with. as it stands now, it's almost a non-concern.

-Slowing the game down, just a bit...will help suck new players in and keep them there.

I just see too many benefits, and very little drawback to not double the armor once more.

I think you'll see a much wider variety of mechs. You'll see more hair balls and knock down drag outs that can last more than 1 minute. The kinds of things that made BattleTech so much fun in the first place.

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Exactly.

-heat finally becoming an issue to deal with. as it stands now, it's almost a non-concern.

-Slowing the game down, just a bit...will help suck new players in and keep them there.

I just see too many benefits, and very little drawback to not double the armor once more.

I think you'll see a much wider variety of mechs. You'll see more hair balls and knock down drag outs that can last more than 1 minute. The kinds of things that made BattleTech so much fun in the first place.

THe drawback is that the weapons will not be any better balanced than they are now, and you have to rethink a lot. Okay, pretty much any idea that fixes fundamental issues in this game will lead to that, I suppose.

ARe we really sure we want combat too last more than twice as long than now. (It's more, because hot weaopns will now "feel the heat", and you will either power down in game or outright equip less firepower and boat more heat sinks to get your optimum of burst and sustainability.).

[Kaldor]

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Requiring twice as much damage to blow off an armor panel achieves that same thing. When PGI doubled the armor from table top figures, it didn't change any load outs. It made the game more fun.

As it stands, the internals are balanced just fine. It still takes a few well placed shots to finish off a stick man.

Internals would only make the mech slightly tougher. See quote below.

Khobai, on 05 September 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Additionally increasing internal structure would solve the problem with crits not mattering because the location gets destroyed before the items are destroyed.

Please read the rest of what people are saying about "NO" as the reason. I dont need to give anymore reasons than the perfectly viable reasons given here by 10 other people.

[Riall]

How about instead, we make Ferro Fibrous actually different from just "Endo Steel but suckier" and allow it to increase the max armor by 12% (or whatever actually makes more sense given this game, maybe 20-25%) so that it's an option that people have available to them and not a given for every mech.

Edited by Riall, 05 September 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[Ser Barristan]

Quoting the BT source materiel as you advocate taking the armor values even further away from TT standard isn't a compelling argument. It should be obvious that this terribly skews the advantage towards heavies and assaults. That a 50 tonner can take a couple more salvos doesn't help them out when heavies and assaults can now take eight times the damage. Unless you were planning institute weight limits so drops matched lore deployments then what you are advocating would make smaller mechs obsolete.

[Khobai]

Quote

Requiring twice as much damage to blow off an armor panel achieves that same thing.

Nope, its not the same thing. because adding armor protects items inside a location more. But increasing internal structure doesnt protect items inside a location more, it just makes the location itself harder to destroy.

If you increase internal structure, weapons like the AC/20 remain effective because they punch the armor and start shredding items. But if you increase armor instead, the AC/20 would have to punch through all that extra armor before it would start to shred items, and it would be a huge nerf.

Increasing internal structure is really the best and only option.

Edited by Khobai, 05 September 2013 - 11:26 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think with every time of armor increase, we will see a shift in armor distrubtion. I suspect that people will downgrade arm and even leg armour more than now - and it won't cause any serious issues for them, since most people don't aim there intentionally in the first place, and less vital stuff is there.
That in turn can cause people to have more tonnage available to add firepower, heat sinks or ammo.

I suspect that the CT and H armor will be maxed out as ever, of course. It might be a net positive, since it might turn systematically (and literally) disarming mechs more efficient then CT armor (though I'd suspect people would eventually figure out a "sweet spot" where it's not a no-brainer.).

[Swervedriver]

Ser Barristan, on 05 September 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Quoting the BT source materiel as you advocate taking the armor values even further away from TT standard isn't a compelling argument. It should be obvious that this terribly skews the advantage towards heavies and assaults. That a 50 tonner can take a couple more salvos doesn't help them out when heavies and assaults can now take eight times the damage. Unless you were planning institute weight limits so drops matched lore deployments then what you are advocating would make smaller mechs obsolete.

You do realize that when people post threads in this forum regarding XXXXX weapon that's "OP" and "ruins" the game, they are really asking for armor not necessarily a nerf.

My Yen-lo-wang packs an AC/20 w/ 28 rounds, and 2 medium lasers. One of my Atlas D builds features 2 medium lasers, an AC/20 with 28 rounds and 3 SRM 6. There's not a whole lot of difference in firepower. Doubling the Armor from today's values for both mechs woudn't slant the Atlas over a Centurion any more or less than it already is.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the another boost to the armor values hasn't been tried since Closed Beta. It's a far more elegant and complete solution than spending countless man hours (and PGI development money) nerfing this or that weapon system to satisfy the masses.

It's quick, can be tested easily, and will leave the developers more time to get to things such as MAPS & Community Warfare.

As a player, I want to play. 15 minutes of a pitched Mech vs. Mech battle sounds great to me.

[William Mountbank]

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

The current state of the game allows a Jenner or even a spider to roll up behind your Atlas take out the engine in 3 shots.

With the current values, if a PPC Spider gets behind an Atlas with no rear armour, the internals still take seven PPC hits before the Atlas falls over. Now add perhaps three more clean hits for rear armour, and we get to minimum 40 seconds kill time for a completely stationary Atlas.

This is not a reason to increase armour [i] or[i] internals health.

[Pendraco]

[Lyoto Machida]

I don't see how quadruple armor would help integrate new players. CoD players are used to dying in 1.25836 seconds once they get hit. Extra armor would prolong their health/time per life and would probably serve to confuse them even more. It would be like the opposite of Hardcore mode.

They already have a hard enough time figuring out how to quickscope here.

[Swervedriver]

William Mountbank, on 05 September 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

With the current values, if a PPC Spider gets behind an Atlas with no rear armour, the internals still take seven PPC hits before the Atlas falls over. Now add perhaps three more clean hits for rear armour, and we get to minimum 40 seconds kill time for a completely stationary Atlas.

This is not a reason to increase armour [i] or[i] internals health.

2 medium lasers & a medium pulse will do that job in about 30 seconds.

On my atlas, I usually put a little extra rear armor on just for that reason. 30+ on the sides, 40+ on the rear center.

I know the PPC is a sexy weapon on a Spider, but mediums & a pulse work way better at destroying internals. With a PPC, you'll shut down long before you can cream an Atlas with fresh armor from the rear.

If you're rocking a 4 MG spider, your cycle targets until you find that mech that's go open internals,

Edited by Swervedriver, 05 September 2013 - 11:49 AM.

[Swervedriver]

Pendraco, on 05 September 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

That's exactly what I look like at the local micro brewery during Friday Happy Hour.

[William Mountbank]

The single PPC was for maths purposes, and no Spider will ever overheat with just one PPC.

30 seconds still proves my point, given the reverse situation is zero seconds. No amount of efficiency optimisation will ever allow a light mech to core an Atlas in three shots.

[Pendraco]

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

That's exactly what I look like at the local micro brewery during Friday Happy Hour.

LOL, I prefer the beer drinking gif over the standard popcorn eating gif.

Edited by Pendraco, 05 September 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Ser Barristan]

Swervedriver, on 05 September 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

You do realize that when people post threads in this forum regarding XXXXX weapon that's "OP" and "ruins" the game, they are really asking for armor not necessarily a nerf.

My Yen-lo-wang packs an AC/20 w/ 28 rounds, and 2 medium lasers. One of my Atlas D builds features 2 medium lasers, an AC/20 with 28 rounds and 3 SRM 6. There's not a whole lot of difference in firepower. Doubling the Armor from today's values for both mechs woudn't slant the Atlas over a Centurion any more or less than it already is.

I'm going to terribly dumb down the math/scenario since I want to make this quick and dirty. We take a Stalker, he currently has 72 max CT armour and we double it up to 144 and we take an HBK with 43 and double it up to 86. Lets assume the Stalker has about roughly 80 damage in weaponry, the HBK has maybe 30. Before the medium mech is certainly screwed by getting hit by an 80 alpha. On the other hand he only needs to hit the Stalker for 72, roughly two and a half times his max firepower to strip the CT. Now if we've doubled up the Stalker still only needs to hit him with 80 points of damage to nearly strip the CT of the HBK. However now our dauntless HBK driver has to strip 144 points of armour off that Stalker. Even hitting 30 point alphas he needs at least 5 to strip the Stalker CT. The story only gets worse when you actually figure how this would actually play out in a real match with true DPS , limited ammo and none too perfect accuracy.

The HBK has had a negligible improvement in armour while the assault has had an massive improvement. Personally I'd rather run the risk of a quick death with a good chance of hurting or killing my enemy than having a slight boost in health and my hitting power turned to a whiffle ball bat.

Edited by Ser Barristan, 05 September 2013 - 12:09 PM.

[Swervedriver]

William Mountbank, on 05 September 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

The single PPC was for maths purposes, and no Spider will ever overheat with just one PPC.

30 seconds still proves my point, given the reverse situation is zero seconds. No amount of efficiency optimisation will ever allow a light mech to core an Atlas in three shots.

Can you say Jenner-F with 6 medium lasers?

I've taken out many an assault sneaking up behind and hitting the rear CT. With one alpha I've sheared off the armor. With two I'm down to Orange, sometimes Red Internals. Once I line up the third alpha it's toast, and I shut down. But I'll gladly make that exchange.

Now, doing this with a moving mech can be problematic. But if the player is too busy playing with his missiles and cycling targets...he/she is a goner.