Jump to content

Slightly Rearrange Armor Values


4 replies to this topic

#1 Devils Advocate

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 636 posts

Posted 15 September 2013 - 09:11 AM

We're already out of canon and into this weird double armor system, but I propose we do something a little more interesting with it.

What do you shoot at when you see a hunchback? Probably his right shoulder. If you take out his right shoulder you take out 90% of his guns 90% of the time. On what other mech is this a viable alternative to shooting the center torso? Pretty much none of them. Where's the reward in focusing down an arm or a leg? Legs that aren't stripped of armor have nearly as much armor as the center torso, so there's no reason to shoot at the legs unless they're already badly damaged. I'd like to see this change.

How about we take something like 15% of the armor off of each of the limbs and pad the center torsos with it. We can even reduce overall armor everywhere by 15% and then move armor from the limbs to the center torsos to keep the center torsos around where they are right now while weakening the limbs. Weaker limbs would provide a tactical alternative to shooting center torso 100% of the time as you would be able to remove powerful weapons or limit mobility of an opponent without bending over backwards unloading 80 damage into something that isn't going to put the other guy down. It gives us more things to shoot at and in a small way offsets the all-weapons-at-center torso meta, and make it a little bit harder to strip 3 tons of armor off of your legs in a heavy mech because you know nobody is going to waste their time shooting at your legs.

#2 Indoorsman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 792 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 15 September 2013 - 09:28 AM

Legging is already a thing, lights can own by legging the way armor is at now: All 8 enemies legged

I shoot the gun arms off centurions which have weps in them. Their CTs are hard to hit and taking the gun of a YLW is a lot quicker than coring it. I don't see how this would be a good thing.

#3 Firewuff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,204 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 September 2013 - 05:28 PM

Different mechs have different advantages. take the arms off a Victor and it will be (h)armless...sorry had to be done. coring a mech is the quickest way to kill them but sometimes legging is more effective for smaller faster mechs.

I dont think the armour needs too much adjustment really, the only time it isa real problem is with our PPC boats etc.

#4 FireDog

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 377 posts

Posted 27 April 2014 - 01:19 PM

I think some mods are in order for some mechs. Take the Hunchback above, it is an unquestionably case where the right Torso would have 10-40% more armor than the left. Another example is the catapult where the CT hit box wraps all the way around it's nose with tiny side torso's. The total amount of armor allowed on the CT would be much greater per the laws of physics as well as by its designer’s logic. Any blatantly asymmetrical mech or long nose wraps around CT like the Cat should take it's geometry in consideration. Note the Stalker would not be a example as its side torsos extend up to its nose.

#5 Durant Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,877 posts
  • LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.

Posted 27 April 2014 - 01:34 PM

Doubling armor didn't take us away from canon. There is still the same relationship between the maximum armor points on different sections.

And no, different sections on different 'Mechs shouldn't suddenly have more or less armor. This exact problem has existed in each and every MechWarrior computer game out there, yet none of them did anything about it. Pinpoint damage also existed in all of them. This is nothing new, and the answer to the "problem" should be the same as the other games -- do nothing.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users