34 replies to this topic

[Varent]

stjobe, on 20 February 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

And the LB-10X, of course.
And the MG, which has a random cone of fire.
And the Flamer, which has the same.

Edit: Doubling internal structure would make life much harder for Light 'mechs, with their relatively lighter armament and lower alpha combined with their natural tendency to go for the biggest target available.

As a predominantly Light pilot, I'm not overly keen on the idea. In fact, I think it's a bad idea. It's not the armour or internal structure values that are the problem, it's instant pin-point alpha striking; so let's do something about that instead.

My suggestion is forced chain-fire and a reworked alpha strike mechanic (extra cooldown and a cone of fire - make alpha strike an "oh shit" button, not the ordinary way of using your weaponry).

it would have just as much advantage to a light mech on a relative scale as it would to any other mech.

Pin point damage is necesary to kill a light mech for larger chasis.

[LauLiao]

Lykaon, on 20 February 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Correct a single AC 20 can still kill you but,you have probably cut that mech's offensive potential in half for less exspended resources than it would have taken to kill it with a CT core out.


with an AC40 Jager I would probably shoot for the side torso most mount XL engines.It will have around 40 armor on an arm and about the same on the front side torsos.So this would be one of those exceptions.

But,What if it was a Victor with 2 AC5s on a right arm and 2 PPC in a side torso? Taking the arm is the right choice (under the assumption that doubled structure was implimented) The Victor has lost a large chunk of it's offense and it's most heat managable portion of it's weapon suite.The remaining PPCs have a nice minimum range to exploit as well.

Doubling internals may be sufficent to allow brawlers to compete with the "meta" frontloading pinpoint mech builds.Like in my example the victor would be butchered in knife fighting range by a dedicated brawling mech.the problem we have is our brawlers rarely make it into their ideal ranges in any semblance of combat effectivness with the current time to kill compounded with pinpoin front loading alphas.

The bottom line is that without actual numbers to crunch, this discussion is purely academic.

[Varent]

LauLiao, on 20 February 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

The bottom line is that without actual numbers to crunch, this discussion is purely academic.

even with a numbers crunch its also situational.

That said this change actually CREATES that situation. Where as right now there is very little reason not to just focus a center torso or side torso down.

[Lykaon]

stjobe, on 20 February 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

And the LB-10X, of course.
And the MG, which has a random cone of fire.
And the Flamer, which has the same.

Edit: Doubling internal structure would make life much harder for Light 'mechs, with their relatively lighter armament and lower alpha combined with their natural tendency to go for the biggest target available.

As a predominantly Light pilot, I'm not overly keen on the idea. In fact, I think it's a bad idea. It's not the armour or internal structure values that are the problem, it's instant pin-point alpha striking; so let's do something about that instead.

My suggestion is forced chain-fire and a reworked alpha strike mechanic (extra cooldown and a cone of fire - make alpha strike an "oh shit" button, not the ordinary way of using your weaponry).

I almost always go for the enemy light mechs first when I pilot a light.I find a large portion of the light pilots do go for the big mechs first and are utterly hopeless in a light vs light dog fight.

But putting that asside...

Light mechs would not suffer any more than any other mech class.The proportional damage they inflict is the same.Actually if anything machinegun equiped mechs may be seeing a significant boost in viability with doubled internals.


I have made suggestions on altering how certain weapons inflict damage based on what type of hit point pool is being hit.

We currently have three seperate hitpoint pools in the mix.

1) Armor
2) Internal Structure
3) Component health

So just as an example we could do this,

ACs inflict 100% damage to armor 50% damage to internals and 100% damage to components.When a hit is resolved the damage is applied to a single target location first (armor if it is present) any excess damage is randomly assigned a target from available options (either internal structure or a component if it is present and not previously destroyed)

To differentiate a weapon type we could have beam weapons like large lasers inflict 100% damage to armor 100% to internal and 100% to components.The huge difference would be a beam weapon deploys damage in "ticks" each damage tick deals a portion of the weapons total damage.Each tick is applied to the targeted area if it is armor.If the target area is not armored each tick is randomly assigned a target from available options (internal structure or components)


These examples show that two distinctive weapon types can be assigned distinctive roles.

An AC is a can opener that punches through armor with pinpoint front loaded damage.The AC is good against armor but less effective at damaging structure.The AC is still potent against components when they are hit deal 100% damage against them so an AC firing into an unarmored body segment is either going to do a little structure damage or a lot of component damage.

Conversley the Laser is equally good at dealing damage against any health pool type.The disadvantages are the need to maintain aim during beam duration (exstending exposure to enemy fire and reducing access to cover while in combat) The advantages are the beam when fired into unarmored body segments will likely hit both component health and structure health making a beam weapon more likely to "seek" damaged health pools.

That is just a basic idea of additional mechanics that can be implimented to balance weapon functions without altering their core functionality.

[Varent]

Lykaon, on 20 February 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

We currently have three seperate hitpoint pools in the mix.

1) Armor
2) Internal Structure
3) Component health

component health, frogot about that lykaon. Thanks!

Yes this would also be a nice boost. And it would make crit items feel more useful to some. To be honest if you even did double and a half to endo steel and then increased the component health by double you would have a very interesting game there.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

I'm not a fan of this idea. I think a much better idea would be to give us a reason to send lances to different locations on the map. The trouble with that is you need multiple objectives that offer a powerful enough advantage to be worth splitting up for but not so powerful that when when one side inevitably wins their fight and takes their objective that they just win the game.

[LawDawg]

Rouken, on 20 February 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

I'm not a fan of this idea. I think a much better idea would be to give us a reason to send lances to different locations on the map. The trouble with that is you need multiple objectives that offer a powerful enough advantage to be worth splitting up for but not so powerful that when when one side inevitably wins their fight and takes their objective that they just win the game.

CW............and Weight Balancing will "Hopefully" fix these issues. WB being addressed first, So we dont have have 3 FS, 2 SDK and 2 JDR on the same team.

If we do, so shall thay....


BTW, anyone noticed they put lances ALOT closer to enemy lances?

Edited by SLDF LawDog, 20 February 2014 - 04:05 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

@OP

I don't think you completely thought through what adding armor would do to the game before coming up with a more complicated and easily abused system.


Adding armor actually PROMOTES team play, by PROMOTING focus fire, not the other way around. It also promotes good gunnery skills by punishing those who miss. Its a WIN/WIN all around for everyone as it also gets around "pinpoint" by putting more armor in the way and thus, again, promotes good gunnery.

[Mcgral18]

SirLANsalot, on 20 February 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

@OP

I don't think you completely thought through what adding armor would do to the game before coming up with a more complicated and easily abused system.


Adding armor actually PROMOTES team play, by PROMOTING focus fire, not the other way around. It also promotes good gunnery skills by punishing those who miss. Its a WIN/WIN all around for everyone as it also gets around "pinpoint" by putting more armor in the way and thus, again, promotes good gunnery.

And the already ammo starved SRMs? Does it remove them from the game entirely? All it will do is make the frontloaded even more popular, with some LL as secondary weapons. But it will increase TTK, that much is true.

[OuttaAmmo NoWai]

Nerfing Focus Fire in any way is nerfing teamwork.

Which is idiotic.

If you are getting killed a lot by wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself, stop wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

Idea: Balancing Focus Firing To Increase Ttk

Trying to nerf or hurt team effectiveness for TTK increase...lame, people just need to learn how to increase their survivability by not being noobs.
I grow weary of the idea that there is any problem with TTK, it is not the game but the player(s) that is the problem. If I get focus fired down quickly I do not cry, I rather applaud the folks that had the coordination to do so, and then I think of what I could have done differently to avoid it, I do not blame the game or convergence, or alphas, and certainly don't blame the ability of others to coordinate and use team effort to drop a mech.

Not only that but if they do the things the OP wants it will be bad when clan tech is released, we should want and will need IS mechs to be as effective as possible for the clan tech release as they are supposed to be far superior to IS mechs. Or the result could be the over nerfing of clan tech to accommodate the IS mechs that have been weakened to much by silly nerfs.
And it will be Clan vs. IS 12 vs. 12 according the latest VLOG the devs put out, so do you really want to keep nerfing IS tech>?

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 20 February 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Nerfing Focus Fire in any way is nerfing teamwork.

Which is idiotic.

If you are getting killed a lot by wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself, stop wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself.

Well said, and correct you are.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 20 February 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

Mcgral18, on 20 February 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

And the already ammo starved SRMs? Does it remove them from the game entirely? All it will do is make the frontloaded even more popular, with some LL as secondary weapons. But it will increase TTK, that much is true.

If my original thread holds true.

SRM's would be getting an extra 100 per a ton (so 200 per) and LRMs would be going to 240per a ton. AC's would be staying put as they are fine where there at vs the damage they do.

Edited by SirLANsalot, 20 February 2014 - 04:43 PM.

[Varent]

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 20 February 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

If you are getting killed a lot by wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself, stop wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself.

This.

[cSand]

Sandpit, on 20 February 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

Sounds a lot like another suggestion that punishes good play

My teammates and I work well together, play well together, use tactics and strategy well, focus on a target, and get punished for it? How does that make any sense?

Yea they keep coming too. I guess people were having no luck demanding every weapon be nerfed, so the next logical step is to ask for players to be nerfed

I haven't used this in awhile but reading the suggestions the last few days it's high time for...

Edited by cSand, 20 February 2014 - 04:56 PM.

[Sandpit]

OuttaAmmo NoWai, on 20 February 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

Nerfing Focus Fire in any way is nerfing teamwork.

Which is idiotic.

If you are getting killed a lot by wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself, stop wandering into a full lance of enemy mechs by yourself.

^ This guy gets it

cSand, on 20 February 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

Yea they keep coming too. I guess people were having no luck demanding every weapon be nerfed, so the next logical step is to ask for players to be nerfed

I haven't used this in awhile but reading the suggestions the last few days it's high time for...

It's a cycle. The same types of threads pop up periodically. We'll get the "Premades are evil" again soon which will be followed by Ballistics are OP, then ECM is OP, with a few "new" complaints every time they change something in a patch