23 replies to this topic

[Karl Marlow]

There is a lot of discussion about TTK on the forums lately. Part of the 'problem' is the ability to pinpoint a large amount of damage in a specific location. I use the term problem loosely because the ability to pinpoint the damage isn't the problem so much as the way armor works in TT is not designed to handle it. In TT if you get lucky and just keep hammering a single section it fails pretty quick, just like in MWO, but it is something that is rare.

Now there are alot of things I can point at on the targeting and pinpoint side of things. I'm presonally a fan of the cone targeting system similar to what is in World of Tanks. However the devs have been pretty adamant about not going that route. So I've come up with a compromise on the armor side of things.

The idea is pretty simple really. Remove the maximum armor allowed on a part. Let the players choose where and how to apply their armor. If they want 10 tons of armor in their head allow it. If they want an Atlas with 1 ML and 70 tons of armor evenly distributed across all his parts then allow that too. Instead of relying on TT rules that are not designed for the pinpoint accuracy give the choice to the players. Let us decide which parts we want to beef up. We would still be limited based on the overall tonnage of our mech and would have to sacrifice engine or fire power to buff up our armor but it would allow us to tank out if we want.

I know it will rub some people wrong who want the game to be more like TT. I want more TT like elements as well but in a game like this I think we need to make changes where the Turn based and random nature of TT isn't transitioning correctly.

Edited by ThomasMarik, 27 November 2014 - 12:04 AM.

[Brody319]

I believe this was suggested some times ago, but they didn't want to limit it to the maximum. I think this may result in some overpowered mechs who pump armor into one area only, but would be almost pointless for other mechs.

[DaFurryFury]

I honestly really like this idea. Would make for some strange builds I think (but fun) as well as get people out of the mindset that armor MUST be maxed before weapons are put on. (Then there is me who runs 88 armor with bigger guns)

[Kmieciu]

This was suggested many times and I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. Players would be able to compensate for oversized hitboxes on some mechs as well as playstyles. And you would never know where to shoot.

[Martis Gradivus]

The only change to armor distribution I think could be feasable would be a combined torso armor. No more RT/CT/LT, but rather FRONT and REAR torso.

It would not have a negative impact on torso twisting since the armor is "pre-spread out" if you will and torso twisting would be required to protect your weapons in the LT/RT.

Not sure though, this far into development, if any changes could be doable now since the basic mechanics of the game are pretty much set in stone now.

[EvilCow]

Martis Gradivus, on 27 November 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

The only change to armor distribution I think could be feasable would be a combined torso armor. No more RT/CT/LT, but rather FRONT and REAR torso.

No thanks.

[LordKnightFandragon]

So drag this game more and more towards some randomly hodgepodged together robot game and less a MW or BT game? meh...

[Lily from animove]

While it sounds fun to imagine how a mech with 10t armor in a head would look like, that would imbalance some chassis being able to put most weapons into CT and sidetorsi because they can unstrip the arms completely to boost everything in those vital parts.

[Kmieciu]

Martis Gradivus, on 27 November 2014 - 12:41 AM, said:

The only change to armor distribution I think could be feasable would be a combined torso armor. No more RT/CT/LT, but rather FRONT and REAR torso.

It would not have a negative impact on torso twisting since the armor is "pre-spread out" if you will and torso twisting would be required to protect your weapons in the LT/RT.

Not sure though, this far into development, if any changes could be doable now since the basic mechanics of the game are pretty much set in stone now.

Great idea Sherlock! That would make XL engines as durable as STD ones!

[The Boz]

ThomasMarik, on 27 November 2014 - 12:02 AM, said:

Now there are alot of things I can point at on the targeting and pinpoint side of things. I'm presonally a fan of the cone targeting system similar to what is in World of Tanks.

I stopped reading here.
No.

[EvilCow]

I would allow to allocate armor beyond the limit but with the following limitations:

- Each point of armor above the limit would weight 1.5 times a normal point of armor.
- 1..10 points of extra armor should would take 1 critical slot in the same section where the armor is allocated.
- The extra armor should not exceed the 20% of the section maximum.

So, OK to the extra armor but at a cost.

[Nightshade24]

The thing with armour is the armour in MW: O is like more then double the effectiveness...

For instance, Dual AC 20 was famous for 1 shot killing a 100% fresh heavy mech or at least seriously damage it.
In game even mediums can tkae a dual AC 20 shot and there max armour is lower that of a normal stock heavy mech typically.


And about no max armour... this sounds like a terrible idea for me. That will make MW: O instead of being the most lore/ TT friendly game out there besides Mechcommander into something comparable to Mechassault...

sorry, but you do not have my vote... and if you got a mech that has more armour then max then his weapons must be very limiting or his engine must be very small...

[mania3c]

Nice simple idea but it could lead to several problems..honestly, if you really think about all issues, you should realize this solution is not doable from design perspective.. Lets review just some of these..

1.) New player experience..Mechlab is already pretty confusing for new players..put unlimited armor into equation and you have nightmare..what is the right armor value for my hunchback? It's 50 or 200?? how to balance it with hardpoints? front? rear? HEAD? what??

I know ..as experienced player you have already tons of clues but new player thrown into this mess would screw it really hard.. The worst thing, the optimum number wouldn't be based on some logic..it would be based on meta about which new player would have no idea.

2.) Meta shift..in best case scenario nothing would change or TTK would be rise a bit.. but honestly, we know this would not happen.. Meta would shift really hard towards to armor..not instantly but overtime..it's simple...longer you live, more damage you deal..we see even now surviving long is the key..give players more tools to survive, and they will find way how to min-max armor and firepower for armor meta..in short..whole balance would be thrown out of the window.. which would lead to another point.

3.)Weapon balance...what would be the best weapon for armor meta?? anything with low weight and decent damage..Medium (pulse) laser boats everywhere!!..spared tonnage would be put into armor and heatsinks...high armor would destroy weapons like LRMs, SRMs, LBX even more... Ballistic are too heavy to be usable in armor meta..also ammo would be an issue.

4.)TTK would skyrocket into the skies.. how long matches would be? 30 minutes per match? what about conquest? everyone would just cap to finish it fast..

5) Balancing point...how to balance weapon when one of the main part of equation (mech toughness) is player drive and can change anytime? Survivability would not be part of the design..it would be player/meta driven... it's impossible to balance when developers can't set the celling of it..

just few problems which would be caused by this approach..and many more would appear ..like hands would be liability..best mechs would be torso mounted weapons..because..who the hell needs armor in arms..right?? it's just not doable my friend..

Edited by mania3c, 27 November 2014 - 01:26 AM.

[Sirius Drake]

ThomasMarik, on 27 November 2014 - 12:02 AM, said:

There is a lot of discussion about TTK on the forums lately. Part of the 'problem' is the ability to pinpoint a large amount of damage in a specific location. I use the term problem loosely because the ability to pinpoint the damage isn't the problem so much as the way armor works in TT is not designed to handle it. In TT if you get lucky and just keep hammering a single section it fails pretty quick, just like in MWO, but it is something that is rare.

Now there are alot of things I can point at on the targeting and pinpoint side of things. I'm presonally a fan of the cone targeting system similar to what is in World of Tanks. However the devs have been pretty adamant about not going that route. So I've come up with a compromise on the armor side of things.

The idea is pretty simple really. Remove the maximum armor allowed on a part. Let the players choose where and how to apply their armor. If they want 10 tons of armor in their head allow it. If they want an Atlas with 1 ML and 70 tons of armor evenly distributed across all his parts then allow that too. Instead of relying on TT rules that are not designed for the pinpoint accuracy give the choice to the players. Let us decide which parts we want to beef up. We would still be limited based on the overall tonnage of our mech and would have to sacrifice engine or fire power to buff up our armor but it would allow us to tank out if we want.

I know it will rub some people wrong who want the game to be more like TT. I want more TT like elements as well but in a game like this I think we need to make changes where the Turn based and random nature of TT isn't transitioning correctly.

No. Thank you but no.
The TT armorsystem isn't the problem in my opinion anyway.

[meteorol]

The catapult would be the great winner of this idea.

[The Boz]

meteorol, on 27 November 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

The catapult would be the great winner of this idea.

What? How? C1/C4/J torso zombies?

[Kmieciu]

On the other hand, with the C-bill earnings at a all-time low, low TTK is actually a great thing! The faster the matches the bigger the income per hour!

Too bad I usually spend more time searching for a match than playing the game.

[Karl Marlow]

The Boz, on 27 November 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

I stopped reading here.
No.

No to what? No I don't favor a Cone style targeting? Why do you feel you know what I favor more than I do?

[Kiiyor]

Well, it's a nice idea, but I think it would just widen the gap between lights and assaults to the point where it's not really a gap, but an unfathomable chasm reaching across space and time, filled with the charred scrap of billions of lights and mediums.

Locusts are already pretty tight for weapons and armour as it is. Imagine a locust running up against THIS with an extra 26 tonnes of armour.

Light mech tap-dancing be damned, all that assault would have to do is get lucky once.

The only thing that would kill an assault mech, is another assault mech.

[The Boz]

No, I don't favor cone of fire.
People who like WoT, and WoT-style CoF, rarely have good ideas for this game.
Never said I knew what you favor more than you.