22 replies to this topic

[Profiteer]

In TT incoming fire hits random mech locations via dice rolls.

In MWO the player can aim and hit wherever they like.

Thus armor values where double to compensate for this fact.

IMO 2x armor hasn't had the desired effect. I still see many quickly mechs cored out with little damage to other locations.

This leads to battles being over too fast as it's often pointless trying to pick mech apart (with a few exceptions), you just aim for the CT, or side-T if you think they are using an XL.

I'd like they ability to spread my armor points around more. If I have more/all of my weapons on the right side of my mech, why can't I peel some armor off the left and place it on the right. If my left arm is empty, why can't I put that armor on my CT?

There would still have to be some sort of limit, but it would be great if you had more freedom as to where you could place your armor points.

[JohnnyWayne]

Internal structure is way too weak. CT hitboxes on the orion and the awesome are too big. DPS on Ac5s / AC2/s are also too high after all these weapon nerfs. Crits that do damage havn't made **** better a bit, it just made mgs usabale / too strong.

It all comes down to quick deaths, even though it was worse in the past.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

My first thought is to reduce our Heat Capacity, to help lower our damage output before making changes to armor.

• I'd cut the bonus Heat Capacity of 30 in half, to 15 (just like the original scale going from 0 to 14 to the first shutdown possibility). Since I don't think the Heat Scale modifiers are going to be implemented. Example: This mech has a 250 engine and one ML with SHS that capacity is at 40 if open the Weaponlab Tab (it would go up to 48 with Mech Tree efficiency boosts). So with the reduction that Capacity would instead be 25.

• And either make all Heat Sinks (SHS and DHS alike) to increase capacity by 1.0 or less (even reduce that to zero). This mech with the DHS upgrade has a capacity of 50, since each DHS adds 2 in the engine, that with the Mech Tree efficiency boosts that can be unlocked can bring Heat Capacity up to 60 and boost Dissipation.

• Then after tweaking Heat Capacity down, the Dissipation rate can be adjusted next as necessary (but this might not need too much tweaking anyway).

Then, if it's still no enough with fixing Heat Capacity, I'd like to explore this kind of idea to tweaking armor based on their surface area coverage: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1


The other idea I'd like to look at, is splitting up the current shared Armor setup we have with our torso sections. This way each section is independent in its armor cap limit and adjusted based on its surface area.

The increased 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.


In the spoiler was a way I was thinking about how it would look making the changes to the torso sections.

Spoiler

One 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 generically, by tons, currently in MWO (missing 75 and 20 ton in the chart). (Mechs like the Hunchback can be treated on a case by case basis)

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.

So the numbers can be easily tweaked as necessary

Also, with the idea, there is room to provide mech specific buffs on a case by case basis.

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

Hunch: 60, Center Torso: 64, Left Torso: 48

RR-Torso: 12, RC-Torso: 32, RL-Torso: 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, since armor got a boost? Again it's just brain storming and can be restricted to certain classes as needed, if the idea could help improve combat.

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.

[BeardedGlass]

The problem is that internals are using a far lower amount than they should for health. For example, an atlas with 124 armor in his chest would "normally" have 62 armor, as armor was doubled. The problem is that internals were not doubled to match, so internal health is actually 31 when it should be 62. The formula for finding out how much internal you have is pretty much Max armor of hardpoint Divided by 2, to equal Original and Internal is half of original basically Armor/2 = Original armor, /2 = actual internal health. That's why the supposedly well armored and stompy mech suddenly evaporates the second his cardboard is gone, when he should at least take a few more hits.

[TexAce]

BeardedGlass, on 12 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

The problem is that internals are using a far lower amount than they should for health. For example, an atlas with 124 armor in his chest would "normally" have 62 armor, as armor was doubled. The problem is that internals were not doubled to match, so internal health is actually 31 when it should be 62. The formula for finding out how much internal you have is pretty much Max armor of hardpoint Divided by 2, to equal Original and Internal is half of original basically Armor/2 = Original armor, /2 = actual internal health. That's why the supposedly well armored and stompy mech suddenly evaporates the second his cardboard is gone, when he should at least take a few more hits.

ehhh....this is not true. An atlas has 124 chest armor and 62 internal structure health. So its always half of max armor per location in MWO.

What it should have is same health as armor, so 124 internal structure.
When this is applied to all mechs, bump up crit chances of all weapons and bum them up even more for special weapons (LBX for example or everything that does little pinpoint damage per round/missile/pellet). This would make the time to kill take much longer but still retain a fun fight

[RandomLurker]

There are many proposed solutions to exactly this problem, most of them different ways to handle weapon convergence. Some are good, some are terrible. None of them have any hope of being implemented given recent history from PGI.

[Nryrony]

Yet for some mechs, Hunchback for example, the hitboxes are not fairly placed. The Catapult also suffers from it.

So more flexibility to shift armor more or less freely between the ST,CT as well as front and rear might improve things. Otherwise they need to overhaul that hit-boxes.

[Satan n stuff]

No matter how tough you make the mechs it won't change the fact that the player that can put the most damage where they want it will win, making mechs tougher just delays the inevitable. Not having a cap on armor per section would make everyone run zombie mechs, do you really want to see centurions with 200+ CT armor?

[Kitane]

***** n stuff, on 13 October 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

No matter how tough you make the mechs it won't change the fact that the player that can put the most damage where they want it will win, making mechs tougher just delays the inevitable. Not having a cap on armor per section would make everyone run zombie mechs, do you really want to see centurions with 200+ CT armor?

That wouldn't really help them, the damage transfer bypasses the armor.

[MustrumRidcully]

BeardedGlass, on 12 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

The problem is that internals are using a far lower amount than they should for health. For example, an atlas with 124 armor in his chest would "normally" have 62 armor, as armor was doubled. The problem is that internals were not doubled to match, so internal health is actually 31 when it should be 62. The formula for finding out how much internal you have is pretty much Max armor of hardpoint Divided by 2, to equal Original and Internal is half of original basically Armor/2 = Original armor, /2 = actual internal health. That's why the supposedly well armored and stompy mech suddenly evaporates the second his cardboard is gone, when he should at least take a few more hits.

This isn't true, internals were doubled as well.

[Bront]

BeardedGlass, on 12 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

The problem is that internals are using a far lower amount than they should for health. For example, an atlas with 124 armor in his chest would "normally" have 62 armor, as armor was doubled. The problem is that internals were not doubled to match, so internal health is actually 31 when it should be 62. The formula for finding out how much internal you have is pretty much Max armor of hardpoint Divided by 2, to equal Original and Internal is half of original basically Armor/2 = Original armor, /2 = actual internal health. That's why the supposedly well armored and stompy mech suddenly evaporates the second his cardboard is gone, when he should at least take a few more hits.

But internal damage to components isn't working 100% correctly yet, so you can't take 3 engine shots while still having a CT like you're potentially supposed to. I think that compensates somewhat.

Again, I think part of the issue is weapons just aren't as balanced as they should be more than armor, because everyone's got the same armor issues at least (though not hitboxes), so it's fairly non-discriminitory.

[Clydewinder]

Any nerf to heat capacity at this point just pushes the ballistic weapons even farther ahead than everything else.

If convergence is not going to be addressed, then the only solution is piecemeal adjustment of hitboxes.

Personally, I don't think the game is too far off from what it should be right now. The main thing would be to fix the mechs with obviously anticompetitive hitboxes ( Spider and Awesome, for opposite reasons )

[3rdworld]

The reason you see mechs cored with nothing else damaged is because the pilots are bad.

Stop trying to stare a hole threw your opponent and it wouldn't happen.

We do not need to buff mechs health or lower weapon accuracy to account for poor play.

[JohnnyWayne]

Sry, complete ********. I just lost a good shaped internal shoulder with no enemy in front of me on my Orion and full armor on my back without that armor being touched.

The internal struckture seems to be bugged. Not to forget that shots create no cockpitshake and paperdolls don't seem to update.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 13 October 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[BeardedGlass]

I remember from MechWarrior 4 that even if you lost a side torso, you would still have the arm attached to it, but in MWO if you lose a side torso half your body rips off. It would be like getting shot in the lung, and your arm doesn't work anymore, Or from a mechanical standpoint, if you lost a tread on a tank, and all the armor next to it evaporated.

Edited by BeardedGlass, 13 October 2013 - 02:43 PM.

[RandomLurker]

BeardedGlass, on 13 October 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I remember from MechWarrior 4 that even if you lost a side torso, you would still have the arm attached to it, but in MWO if you lose a side torso half your body rips off. It would be like getting shot in the lung, and your arm doesn't work anymore, Or from a mechanical standpoint, if you lost a tread on a tank, and all the armor next to it evaporated.

More like your entire left ribcage is removed, and your arm is still hanging there in midair fully functional. Sorry, but it's MW4 that got it wrong.

[Satan n stuff]

Kitane, on 13 October 2013 - 04:21 AM, said:

That wouldn't really help them, the damage transfer bypasses the armor.

Back to the testing grounds...
No it doesn't. It does however appear to transfer damage only to the front CT, even if you hit the target in the back.

[Karl Streiger]

RandomLurker, on 13 October 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

More like your entire left ribcage is removed, and your arm is still hanging there in midair fully functional. Sorry, but it's MW4 that got it wrong.

Is this so?
I really start to like the Timber Wolf example although the stalker works too.

In case of the timberwolf...you shoot at the missile pod - and the arm and the XL fusion of the Timber Wolf gets lost?
Or in case of the Stalker...your shots land on the SRMs in the front part - but instead or ripping damaging the CT - and cut off the front part - the arms (in the rear part) get lost.

Sry guys the TT system does not work in MWO - it is one thing that logic and comon sense does not work in TT because its round based - played with human resources - but MWO? Its real time played on much more detail

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 October 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Sandpit]

This is not a flame or troll but an honest inquiry.

Why aren't the TT numbers used? PPC = 10 damage and 10 heat, set recycle time where it doesn't become OP? I know a few have said this was switched early in the CB (before I was able to get in) but I've never heard why. The wepon systems really seem like they've been made much more complicated and convoluted than they have to be at this point.

LRM20 = 4 packs of 5 missiles. Each pack randomly impacts a location on the mech. Each pack has a random chance to have misfires, duds, or guidance system malfunctions to simulate the random hit locations used in TT.

SRM = same dummy fire

SSRM = Fire and forget as now.

I'd leave the lasers as is with they way they are a continuous burn and can have their damage spread.

These seem like simple things to me that have been made into complicated messes. If these values were kept wouldn't the armor values be fine with a 1:1 ratio? Even if they weren't you could still adjust armor up until it balances and "feels right" between values and fun.

[Karl Streiger]

Sandpit, on 14 October 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

These seem like simple things to me that have been made into complicated messes. If these values were kept wouldn't the armor values be fine with a 1:1 ratio? Even if they weren't you could still adjust armor up until it balances and "feels right" between values and fun.

No in TT your hit is applied on a 2d6 table.
You can simulate MWO - choose the hitlocation via point and click - with using the rules for targeting computer with the difference that if you not be able to get the necessary to hit numbers - you can use a MoS system to see if you still was able to hit the target.

And MWO will not work with 1:1 armor values.
SRM have to be guided too (SSRM should have a more complex - forecast guiding system)