15 replies to this topic

[Buckminster]

So a couple of us have been discussing this (Koniving and a couple others) and I wanted to get it into the official suggestion queue.

Currently we have armor rules based on the old TT mech construction rules - where armor maxes are determined by the weight of the mech. Values are doubled but that's just a detail.

What I'd like to propose is that armor values for a mech are based on their stock armor values. Maybe make it stock + X tons to allow for some customization, but keeping it generally based on the stock mechs. What this does is introduce a large variety in the mechs, an actual reason to use different mechs.

Let's look at three examples, all 65 tons, and a little bit of their lore:

Jagermech: While it does address the Rifleman's heat issues and limited ammunition, it does so at the cost of significant armor protection. Carrying only a miserly six tons of standard armor, the JagerMech is very vulnerable to return fire. (6 tons in MWO is 192 points).

Catapult: Its ten tons of armor, fifteen heat sinks and top speed of 64.8 km/h allows the Catapult to deliver its payload of Long Range Missiles on an enemy from great distances without the risk of return fire. (10 tons of armor in MWO is 320; equal to a Hunchback).

Thunderbolt: As is common for 'Mechs of its size in the era it was produced, the Thunderbolt has a maximum ground speed of 64.8 kph and does not have any jump capabilities. For protection, the Thunderbolt also carries thirteen tons of armor. (13 tons of armor in MWO 416; just half a ton short of a Stalker's armor and superior to every lore-friendly Victor variant in existence yet massively inferior to the armor of an Awesome).

So you have three mechs of the same weight, but based on their inherent lore design philosophy, they have significantly different amounts of armor to suit their different roles. By allowing us to just add armor to the maximums as determined by weight, we've eliminated a major difference between these mechs. In TT, taking a Jager meant dealing with the fact that you had very light armor, where a Thunderbolt would mean that you may have less guns or maneuverability, but you had a lot more armor to protect you.

Another thing this'll do is it'll keep a lot of the old mech conceptions in place. Right now, the Atlas doesn't have the fear factor it used to. It used to be "Atlas, oh shit - that's a ton of armor and guns". But now, due to the uncapped armor modifying, you can take a Victor (stock of 368 armor) and jack it up to maximum (494), which closes that armor superiority gap that the Atlas used to have (608). So with the increased maneuverability of the Victor and the new maximum armor values, the Atlas' advantage all but disappears.


And now for part 2!

By setting armor values based on the tons of armor on the stock mech, you've also given a chance for ferro fibrous to actually be worth something. At 36 points per ton instead of 32, adding ferro means that you actually increase the amount of armor that your mech has at the cost of space. It'll become an actual mech construction decision, rather than the "ES is always the better upgrade" that we have now.

Going back to the Jagermech - stock version has 6 tons of standard armor. By adding in FF, you still have the 6 tons of armor, but that value is now 216 instead of 192. So that begs the question - do you add ES to save weight, or FF to try and maximize your armor?


But wait - part 3!

Another thing about this is it can be applied differently to IS and Clan mechs, to help differentiate the two. If you make Clan mechs as stock armor only, and allow IS mechs to be "stock + 2 tons", then you are giving the IS mechs some of that flexibility that they are known for, without completely eliminating the flavor.


So I know the odds of this happening are basically zilch, because people like their meta mech customization, and it'd require some revisiting the shooting mechanics. Based on the current pinpoint convergence and single shot style autocannons, that stock Jager won't survive. But I think bringing in some sort of armor difference would go a long way to adding in the Battletech flavor that a lot of us think is missing.

And thanks again to Koniving, who did a lot of work on flushing out the idea.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I like it.

[Durant Carlyle]

It's 35.84 points per ton for I.S. FF. Any fractions are rounded down.

It wouldn't require any kind of "shooting mechanics" revisiting. You want a BoomJager? You live with its weaknesses.

And I definitely do NOT support the I.S.-only armor increase.

The problem with this whole thing is coming up with new maximums for all of the sections of the affected 'Mechs. The stock Jager can have 192 armor points distributed as the stock values, and the new maximum would be 288 points (322 with FF armor), but what will the new maximum values be for each section under the new rules? And having two different maximum values (one for Std and one for FF) will be confusing to some.

[Stingray Productions]

I like it, mostly because it sounds more what it should be in association with lore. However, I think many will be disappointed on having a weak jaggermech, catapult, etc. I don't know everything, but I'd assume there are plenty of MWO players that don't actually know much about BT lore and would prefer a more armored jagger.

[Buckminster]

Durant Carlyle, on 30 April 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

The problem with this whole thing is coming up with new maximums for all of the sections of the affected 'Mechs. The stock Jager can have 192 armor points distributed as the stock values, and the new maximum would be 288 points (322 with FF armor), but what will the new maximum values be for each section under the new rules? And having two different maximum values (one for Std and one for FF) will be confusing to some.

One option would be to leave it as stock armor values, and if you add FF you gain a 12% bonus at each location. It's take out a lot of the complications. It's also mean taking out a lot of the customization though, which I know is one thing that people really love.

Stingray1234, on 30 April 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

I like it, mostly because it sounds more what it should be in association with lore. However, I think many will be disappointed on having a weak jaggermech, catapult, etc. I don't know everything, but I'd assume there are plenty of MWO players that don't actually know much about BT lore and would prefer a more armored jagger.

As a guy that runs Jagers a lot, it'd really hurt me to see them limited to only 6 tons of armor. But I think we see too much of the same old stuff, partially because a lot of the mechs that are traditionally heavily armored (like the Awesome) no longer have their prime advantage, so they fall to the side.

Edited by Buckminster, 30 April 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[Livewyr]

Could've swore I had a thread about this somewhere.. down on page 1.

[Buckminster]

Livewyr, on 30 April 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Could've swore I had a thread about this somewhere.. down on page 1.

Funny thing is that I checked through the first couple pages, because Koniving had talked about this and I didn't want to duplicate. I totally missed your post. Derp on me.

[EvoseveN]

I completely support this concept.

[Harathan]

I'm on board. Combine this with weapon hardpoint sizes and we might actually have something close to what a lot of us were hoping for when we ponied up for our Founders badge.

[Khobai]

I agree that mechs should only be able to equip armor based on their stock armor values. However I believe it should be percentage based by weight class, like engine rating. The reason for this is because light mechs and medium mechs need close to max armor to compete in the current environment. So light and medium mechs should get a different max armor allowance than heavy or assault mechs. Very similar to how engine rating max allowances differ by weight class.

Quote

At 36 points per ton instead of 32, adding ferro means that you actually increase the amount of armor that your mech has at the cost of space.

Except FF doesnt increase the max armor allowed on the mech. You would have to change how FF works.

Also because FF is percentage based, it wouldnt be worth taking on mechs with low base armor, and only mechs with very high base armor would get any real benefit from it. So taking FF would not be the "choice" you seem to think it would be.

Example: taking FF on a Jager is sacrificing 14 slots to gain a pitiful 6T+2T x 0.12 = 0.96 tons of extra armor. No one in their right mind would make that tradeoff. ES is still always better.

The only way FF becomes a choice is if it gets a massive buff. FF would have to both decrease armor weight by 20% AND increase max armor allowed by 20%. And even then its only as good as ES on mechs with close to max armor. Mechs with less than max armor would simply be better off taking ES. Although mechs that can afford to take both ES and FF would still benefit.

Edited by Khobai, 08 May 2014 - 08:30 AM.

[Cart]

http://mwomercs.com/...ant-max-armour/

[dangerzone]

[Buckminster]

Khobai, on 08 May 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

IAlso because FF is percentage based, it wouldnt be worth taking on mechs with low base armor, and only mechs with very high base armor would get any real benefit from it. So taking FF would not be the "choice" you seem to think it would be.

Example: taking FF on a Jager is sacrificing 14 slots to gain a pitiful 6T+2T x 0.12 = 0.96 tons of extra armor. No one in their right mind would make that tradeoff. ES is still always better.

That's why you make the armor limits based on tonnage, and not amounts. Then the increased protection per ton of FF actually means something.

Let's use the Jager example:
Stock = 6 tons = 192 points of armor.
Stock + FF = 6 tons = 216 points of armor
Stock + ES = 6 tons = 192 points of armor and 3 tons to spend on not armor.

So 12% isn't much of an increase, but if it's the only increase available then it's worth something.

[Khobai]

Quote

So 12% isn't much of an increase, but if it's the only increase available then it's worth something.

its not worth 14 crit slots

[Conn Man]

Khobai, on 08 May 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

its not worth 14 crit slots

It's more worth it on small 'mechs, which usually have plenty of slots free but can't carry much weight. Running ES and FF on an Atlas will pretty much guarantee you run out of slots and still have plenty of tonnage to spare.

[Cart]

Well, IF we had a system, that would limit the max possible armour of a Mech by tons you can add to the stock-armour, then this 12% would be worth something, f.e.:
Lets say you would may only add 1t of armour to the stock-amour-value.
The Jaeger-Mech JM6-S comes with 6t of armour. You could add 1t. That would mean, that in you would be limited to a total of 7t of armour. That means he would be limited to:

• 7*32=224 points in std-armour. (Thats what the Jenner JR7-F has in stock!)
  
• 7*35,84=250,88 -> 251 points in ferro (27 more, so almost like 1t of std-armour more)

If this would be worth 14 Crits? That would everone have to decide for himself.





But think of this:
Endo saves you 3t on the Jaeger-Mech. the Max-Armour of a Jaeger after this example would be 7t. The max armour of the jaeger (as for all 65t Mechs at the moment) is about 13t of std-armour. So, you would already have 6t free. 3t more, than with Endo.
Now you could decide:

• Either sacrifice the 14 Crits for additional 3t (meaning Endo-Steel)
  
• Or sacrifice the 14 Crits for 27 armour-points more (meaning Ferro-Fibrous)

And just to show, what 224 Armour-points on the Jaeger would look like:


JM6-S
Wouldn't you like to have the additional 27 armour-points?
Sure...you could also pick Endo to put 3 more tons of (explosive) ammo in this fragile thing...
That would make the the Jaeger in MWO the Glass-Canon it is in lore.

If you want a system like that and how, you can vote here:
http://mwomercs.com/...ant-max-armour/

Edited by Cart, 08 May 2014 - 09:21 PM.