Psst. This is in response to
this earlier post where I was clarifying that an Adder / Puma had a huge armor superiority over most light mechs in lore, and mentioned an armor concept I've been brewing for a few months. Then this specific post shelled out some examples of the armor concept which tries to maintain the lore differences between mech variants and their armor.
It's apparently becoming a popular read; once I get all the armor values of the Clan mechs stock I'll come up with a followup, crediting Buckminister, Gasoline, JWP, WaybadMojo, and a few others who assisted with or inspired the idea which turned a simple rule change into a huge game changer that eliminates the "every mech is the same with a new skin" issue that we have. I return you to this original post.
-----------
Wispsy, on 13 June 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:
Great yeah lets balance the game on lore...that will make it fun for everybody playing...
Lets take 128 armor. That's 4 tons.
Now add 3 tons as a new max.
Locust: Current max 138.
New max: 224 standard. 252 ferro.
Same for Jenner D.
Jenner F? 224 + 3 tons as the new max = 320 standard. 360 ferro.
Chain reaction through all mechs. Every mech gets more armor. But stock differences are preserved.
The difference between an Atlas (that starts with 608 armor) and a Locust (that starts with 128 armor) is 480 points (or one Awesome 8Q).
With this, whether it's 100% stock, or 100% maxed out, the armor difference between a Locust and an Atlas will always be 480 points.
The same would be true of a Jenner D and an Atlas.
A Commando (with 128 stock) and an Atlas.
Right now the armor difference at their current maxes between a Locust and an Atlas is 476. Making the Atlas feel weak and the Locust as if made of paper.
The difference between a Jenner D and an Atlas in MWO is 380. 100 points inferior for the Atlas.
The difference between a Commando 1-B and an Atlas is 438, again making the Atlas seem weak and the Commando out of paper (since with the armor concept the Commando would have as its new max 224 standard. 252 ferro. [compared to 176 now], but the Atlas's 480 points of armor stock and lore superiority would be maintained.]
The ratio between the Jenner D and the Jenner F, doesn't exist in MWO. But in lore it's 96 points; the Jenner F's armor is 96 points superior to the Jenner D who in turn gets better weapons.
Cataphract 3D and 4X? That is to say the best Cataphract at everything and the slowest one?
3D 352 points of armor. New max standard: 448 (higher than current max).
4X 434 points of armor. New max standard: 530.
82 points of difference.
Fun fact: The 4X is listed in lore as having 14 tons of armor. (432 is only 13.5 for noting it). So it'd be 17 tons or 544 standard armor.
At source: 3D is 11 tons of armor (352 std).
4X is 14 tons of armor (448 std).
96 points of difference. Preserved after the new maxes.
Now the 3D (Jumpjets and best weapons) versus the Cataphract 2x?
At stock 352 versus 416.
At max 448 versus 512. Suddenly that 2X with the crappy hardpoints became a little more appealing.
And you were saying?
It's not balancing by armor. It's applying stock armor as a determining factor for maximum armor.
The mechs with the best hardpoints almost always have the worst armor.
The mechs with the worst hardpoints almost always have the best armor.
The result? No more "useless" mechs that have bad hardpoints which are outperformed by everything else.
But wait, if a Locust and a Jenner have identical armor, why use a Jenner?
Structure health is not touched. Locust has 75, Jenner has 123. So even at identical armor, the Jenner will take more abuse.
(Find structure health by taking the TT max armor and adding 6 [for the 15 internal structure on the head to prevent instant headshots from Gauss Rifles]. Or you can find it by taking MWO's current max armor for a tonnage, dividing it by 2, then adding 6.)
Edited by Koniving, 14 June 2014 - 09:33 AM.