26 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

.

Mechs in this game are generally characterized as having arms that are narrower and more difficult to hit than the side torsos of the mech they're attached to.

A cicada's arms (highlighted in red) are extremely small targets from the front.



Jenners, commandos, locusts, spiders and other lights are similarly arrayed.

Arms being smaller more difficult to hit targets, few make a conscious effort to target them. If a light loses an arm its more likely a result of an accidental hit, overheating or random chance than conscious intent.

This can lead to repetitive gameplay where torsos or legs are primary targets on a light mech. It could be repetitive in terms of every game either being "leg the light" or "core the light". Its a rare sight to see a light mech with its arms shot off running around with no guns.

Similar things may be said of mechs of other classes.

A banshees arms are narrower and harder to hit than its side torsos from a frontal perspective.



Another interesting facet involves many mechs in this game being characterized by heavier or equal armor on their arms in proportion to their side torsos.



In the above builds, arms carry 61 points of armor while the side torso carries 54.

In many cases its accurate to say, not only are mech arms smaller, narrower and more difficult to hit than side torsos.

They're also more heavily armored! This somewhat defeats the purpose of mechs having arms.

The concept behind arm mounted weapons in BT involves arms being smaller targets requiring a higher degree of skill to successfully hit. The risk vs reward tradeoff was arms having less armor and requiring less firepower to destroy.

What if armor distribution was altered so that a mech's arms had less armor than a mech's side torso by a value of 10-20 points? Like say if every mech in the game received a 10% to 20% RT/LT/CT armor boost.

Could it result in more scenarios where people might make a conscious effort to target a mech's arms? Might it introduce a risk vs reward element that could contribute towards game depth and reduce the repetitiveness factor of things?

WDYT?

.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 21 October 2014 - 01:02 AM.

[J0anna]

Uh no.

1) Arms ALWAYS have less armor than torso's. Armor = 2x internal HP (as you look at your picture) Torso's always have more HP. Look at your picture, the arms have 64 armor, the torso's 80.....

2) The purpose of combat is to destroy the enemy mech, not shoot it's arms off.

3) The reason mechs have weapons in their arms (and the advantage of arm mounted weapons), is that arm mounted weapons have a greater firing arc than torso mounted weapons, but are more vulnerable due to having less armor.

There is a wonderful book available called "Battletech Master Rules", I suggest you pick it up and read it.

Edited by Moenrg, 21 October 2014 - 01:04 AM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Moenrg, on 21 October 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

Torso's always have more HP. Look at your picture, the arms have 64 armor, the torso's 80.....

Uh. I'm pretty sure the arm does have a maximum of 64 armor.

The side torso doesn't have 80 armor.

It has 54 if you're shooting at it from the front. 26 if you're hitting it from the back.

It doesn't matter if you're hitting it from the front or back. The arm will always have better armor.

This means its pointless to shoot the arm & eliminates any reason for trying.

I think the side torso should have 80 armor if you're shooting it from the front and 20 armor if you're shooting it from behind. This makes the arm of a mech a more desirable target being that it only has 60 armor.

The way things are now, the only people who bother targetting the arms of a mech are the people who don't realize the arm has just as much armor as the side torso.

.

[J0anna]

Torso armor is split between front and back, but it's more. Normally I reduce my back torso armor and increase my front torso armor on mechs to give the front torso more armor than arms.... so can you. No matter how you slice it 80 > 64.

[Karl Streiger]

Moenrg, on 21 October 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

Uh no.

1) Arms ALWAYS have less armor than torso's. Armor = 2x internal HP (as you look at your picture) Torso's always have more HP. Look at your picture, the arms have 64 armor, the torso's 80.....

2) The purpose of combat is to destroy the enemy mech, not shoot it's arms off.

3) The reason mechs have weapons in their arms (and the advantage of arm mounted weapons), is that arm mounted weapons have a greater firing arc than torso mounted weapons, but are more vulnerable due to having less armor.

There is a wonderful book available called "Battletech Master Rules", I suggest you pick it up and read it.

uh oh - so many mistakes in one post

called BattleTech Master Rules - not MWO Master Rules -
arms in BT could not be targeted if not for a targeting computer - the chance to hit a arm was ~ the same as hitting the side torso. In MWO hitting the arm depends on the shooter - if side torso is simpler to hit - i go for the side torso - never even bother to shot at the arms. Reason is simple - only need little bit more damage to destroy the side AND the arm.

the purpose of combat is to destroy the enemys ability to hit you. Currently its more simple to destroy the enemy - not to destroy his ability to hit you. A change is necessary

arms don't have less armor - as said you can hit the arms from different angles - with the same armor rating - while in the rear of an enemy mech you hardly will aim for the arms (only if the rear armor is intact) and the arm armor is gone with heavy critical damage on arm and side torso (destroy side by damage transaction)

[J0anna]

Karl Streiger, on 21 October 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

...

I have no idea what post you're responding to. You clearly didn't read/understand mine.....

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Moenrg, on 21 October 2014 - 01:13 AM, said:

Torso armor is split between front and back, but it's more. Normally I reduce my back torso armor and increase my front torso armor on mechs to give the front torso more armor than arms.... so can you. No matter how you slice it 80 > 64.

.

With 20 points armor on RRT and RLT, front side torso armor is equivalent to arm armor.

How low do you go on rear torso armor to achieve your claimed higher armor stats?

Karl Streiger, on 21 October 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

uh oh - so many mistakes in one post

called BattleTech Master Rules - not MWO Master Rules -
arms in BT could not be targeted if not for a targeting computer - the chance to hit a arm was ~ the same as hitting the side torso. In MWO hitting the arm depends on the shooter - if side torso is simpler to hit - i go for the side torso - never even bother to shot at the arms. Reason is simple - only need little bit more damage to destroy the side AND the arm.

the purpose of combat is to destroy the enemys ability to hit you. Currently its more simple to destroy the enemy - not to destroy his ability to hit you. A change is necessary

arms don't have less armor - as said you can hit the arms from different angles - with the same armor rating - while in the rear of an enemy mech you hardly will aim for the arms (only if the rear armor is intact) and the arm armor is gone with heavy critical damage on arm and side torso (destroy side by damage transaction)

Sounds like a fundamental error. Arms having as much armor as a side torso is like a cockpit having as much armor as a center torso.

The reason some components are more difficult to hit is to increase the risk vs reward element of things where some components of a mech, like a cockpit or a mech's arms, are more difficult to target. But also have a tradeoff of requiring less firepower to destroy.

Arms having as much armor as side torsos gives no incentive to target a mech's arms.

This leads to a shallower pool of options in terms of risk vs reward and could lead to less depth of gameplay.

.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 21 October 2014 - 01:28 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

Sounds like a fundamental error. Arms having as much armor as a side torso is like a cockpit having as much armor as a center torso.

exactly thats how it should be in a FPS - smaller target - less armor. even when its counter intuitive
- don't have a good example rather than WoT in the moment.
although tough armored it was possible to destroy the B1 in wot with a single HE grenade - all you have to do was to aim for a weak spot.

[LordKnightFandragon]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 01:09 AM, said:

Uh. I'm pretty sure the arm does have a maximum of 64 armor.

The side torso doesn't have 80 armor.

It has 54 if you're shooting at it from the front. 26 if you're hitting it from the back.

It doesn't matter if you're hitting it from the front or back. The arm will always have better armor.

.

Strip 10 pts off the back and place it on the front of the ST, then see where hte math adds up. Or, run 15 armor on the back, 54+15=69, more armor then the arm........that is based solely on your own allocation of armor. If you went 0 armor and just went all front, its still more armor then your armor, 54+26=80. So, the 80 is the max armor the ST can have, which is more then the arm.....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 21 October 2014 - 03:41 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

LordKnightFandragon, on 21 October 2014 - 03:39 AM, said:

Strip 10 pts off the back and place it on the front of the ST, then see where hte math adds up. Or, run 15 armor on the back, 54+15=69, more armor then the arm........that is based solely on your own allocation of armor. If you went 0 armor and just went all front, its still more armor then your armor, 54+26=80. So, the 80 is the max armor the ST can have, which is more then the arm.....

and still the side torso would have less armor. appart from the fact that no MWO player should even bother to shot at a Banshees side torso nor the arms - he simple go for the CT.

And that is the point.
Double Armor from 2d6 don't work when you can choose the hitbox - the only difference is that some people are better skilled to hit the hit box of choice.
You can increase the numbers even by factor 12 and still most people will go for the CT - simple because the difference between kill or fire power halved is seldom worth to disarm an opponent.

We need a system where it is simpler to disarm or cripple a battlemech but it should be hard to score the final kill.

Of course you can - take simple math to underline that the OPs example has some flaws. But even in TT the 95t internal structure was indeed weird - considering the difference between arm and side / leg internals

[J0anna]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

With 20 points armor on RRT and RLT, front side torso armor is equivalent to arm armor.

How low do you go on rear torso armor to achieve your claimed higher armor stats?

That question has multiple answers. The quickest of which is it depends. It depends on what I have in the mech (weapons), how I plan on fighting with the mech, what is the layout of hitboxes, and if I plan on using the mech in group or not. The explanation of each item could take pages if I wanted. But some simple rules:

1) If the rear hitboxes are tiny and very hard to hit, there is little reason for armoring them much at all. For example the rear torso behind the hunch on a hunchback. 2 to 4 armor points are more than enough. However since you posted the back of a pulse laser banshee, I would start with 14 armor points there.

2) Pulse lasers don’t require much face time, but if I was using Lasers or Clan AC’s, I would need more face time to deliver full damage – thus my front torso needs a bit more armor – I might drop it down to 12 if I was using a laser banshee (I normally don’t).

3) If I was dropping in group, and had dedicated mechs for sweeping lights (and I was a brawler) I’d drop it down to 10, as I have other mechs to “watch my back”.

The bottom line is you want to keep the enemies if front of you as much as possible and thus keep your armor in front. I would suggest starting with 14 on your banshee, then seeing if you die more to front torso’s than back. Move a point here or there and keep experimenting. Also the armor on your arms is very expendable in a banshee as you have nothing vital there (there are mechs where I run with no or very little armor on one arm as losing that arm means nothing to the mech). There is really little reason to keep it maxed (drop it by half or more to gain more tons for HS/engine size). Obviously it is almost always a good idea to keep torso armor maxed, arms and legs should usually be the first area to look when cutting armor (don’t cut leg armor on lights though). Lights, in general, have more % armor on their backs (if brawlers) as they will normally be shot from more angles (though you should almost always be shooting at a light’s legs). Remember that arms can be hit from either the front or the back, while torso’s can only be hit on the appropriate side, so arms wind up being vulnerable more often. And for those who say you should be "shooting the CT" perhaps, but for your own mech (and certainly for assault pilots) you should be torso twisting as much as possible to be taking those hits on your arms.

WOT is a very good game in its own right, but Battletech (and Mechwarrior) has a very rich history and is also a very good game in its own right. PGI understands there are VERY loyal battletech fans who know the history by heart and can quote you chapter and verse from it. They know the rules of battletech (where MWO gets a lot of its rules) and have played it hundreds of times. “Suggesting” that MWO be more like WOT or some other FPS game is anathema to those fans. You might have very good ideas, but I suggest you read some of the battletech books (dedicated to the clan invasion period, most of which I have read 4 or more times) and read the rules of Battletech (including battlemech construction rules, which MWO is fairly closely following) and perhaps see why what you are suggesting in considered wrong by many others. There is so much more to MWO than some first person shooter, depriving yourself of the knowledge of the history of the Inner Sphere is limiting yourself in so many ways.

[Dracol]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

.

Mechs in this game are generally characterized as having arms that are narrower and more difficult to hit than the side torsos of the mech they're attached to.

A cicada's arms (highlighted in red) are extremely small targets from the front.

Arms being smaller more difficult to hit targets, few make a conscious effort to target them. If a light loses an arm its more likely a result of an accidental hit, overheating or random chance than conscious intent.

This can lead to repetitive gameplay where torsos or legs are primary targets on a light mech. It could be repetitive in terms of every game either being "leg the light" or "core the light". Its a rare sight to see a light mech with its arms shot off running around with no guns.

Having run Cicadas for a very long time, I can tell you this: I lose my arms all the time.

Why you ask? Cause I make em take the hits instead of my torsos. Yes we don't have random tables and people can target the CT every time. But, I can also torso twist and put my "arms" into the line of fire, something you really can't do in TT.

If one just faces off against an opponent, then ya, you're not going to lose arms often. But once one gets proficient at twisting and spreading damage, you'll start to realize having that extra armor in the arms is a great benefit.

Side note: Any overall increase to armor as you proposed would benefit Heavies and Assaults the most. IMHO, and I think a lot of people agree, any general boost to those classes is not all that beneficial due to keeping Mediums and Lights viable.

Edited by Dracol, 21 October 2014 - 04:05 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Moenrg, on 21 October 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

WOT is a very good game in its own right, but Battletech (and Mechwarrior) has a very rich history and is also a very good game in its own right. PGI understands there are VERY loyal battletech fans who know the history by heart and can quote you chapter and verse from it. They know the rules of battletech (where MWO gets a lot of its rules) and have played it hundreds of times. “Suggesting” that MWO be more like WOT or some other FPS game is anathema to those fans. You might have very good ideas, but I suggest you read some of the battletech books (dedicated to the clan invasion period, most of which I have read 4 or more times) and read the rules of Battletech (including battlemech construction rules, which MWO is fairly closely following) and perhaps see why what you are suggesting in considered wrong by many others. There is so much more to MWO than some first person shooter, depriving yourself of the knowledge of the history of the Inner Sphere is limiting yourself in so many ways.

you are not talking to me don't you?
cause i did throw WoT as an (bad) example into the pool

Dracol, on 21 October 2014 - 04:05 AM, said:

Why you ask? Cause I make em take the hits instead of my torsos. Yes we don't have random tables and people can target the CT every time. But, I can also torso twist and put my "arms" into the line of fire, something you really can't do in TT.

here things become complicated - you can "hide" a side of your mech - for example your mech got multiple hits on the right side - so it is possible to turn and show them your left... (while you are limiting your arc of fire) the chances that those serve damaged locations are hit can be reduced.

I think torso twisting is at best an equivalent - because it is not possible to shield your mech good enough. Even got killed with destroyed right torso enemy was 90° at my left.
I admit its hard to find a good value for "torso" twisting - and a change back from the not working 2d6 hitboxes - could have some impact for those players

[FupDup]

Your side torsos will have a lot more armor if you frontload it....who uses 26 rear armor anyways? That's way too much. I don't ever go over 12 rear armor, even on Dire Whales. Most of my mechs are under 10 and only occasionally regret it (it helps more often than it hurts, by a long shot).

[Ultimax]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 01:09 AM, said:

Uh. I'm pretty sure the arm does have a maximum of 64 armor.

The side torso doesn't have 80 armor.

It has 54 if you're shooting at it from the front. 26 if you're hitting it from the back.

You can, and should, adjust those Front/Rear Torso numbers.

If you are not, you are doing it wrong.

[LordKnightFandragon]

FupDup, on 21 October 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

Your side torsos will have a lot more armor if you frontload it....who uses 26 rear armor anyways? That's way too much. I don't ever go over 12 rear armor, even on Dire Whales. Most of my mechs are under 10 and only occasionally regret it (it helps more often than it hurts, by a long shot).

So overall, people dont use that much rear armor? I know I was running 20, but lowered it to 15 on my Whorehawks.

[Colby Boucher]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 01:24 AM, said:

Sounds like a fundamental error.

[Tombstoner]

I Zeratul I, on 21 October 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

.

Mechs in this game are generally characterized as having arms that are narrower and more difficult to hit than the side torsos of the mech they're attached to.

A cicada's arms (highlighted in red) are extremely small targets from the front.



Jenners, commandos, locusts, spiders and other lights are similarly arrayed.

Arms being smaller more difficult to hit targets, few make a conscious effort to target them. If a light loses an arm its more likely a result of an accidental hit, overheating or random chance than conscious intent.

This can lead to repetitive gameplay where torsos or legs are primary targets on a light mech. It could be repetitive in terms of every game either being "leg the light" or "core the light". Its a rare sight to see a light mech with its arms shot off running around with no guns.

Similar things may be said of mechs of other classes.

A banshees arms are narrower and harder to hit than its side torsos from a frontal perspective.



Another interesting facet involves many mechs in this game being characterized by heavier or equal armor on their arms in proportion to their side torsos.



In the above builds, arms carry 61 points of armor while the side torso carries 54.

In many cases its accurate to say, not only are mech arms smaller, narrower and more difficult to hit than side torsos.

They're also more heavily armored! This somewhat defeats the purpose of mechs having arms.

The concept behind arm mounted weapons in BT involves arms being smaller targets requiring a higher degree of skill to successfully hit. The risk vs reward tradeoff was arms having less armor and requiring less firepower to destroy.

What if armor distribution was altered so that a mech's arms had less armor than a mech's side torso by a value of 10-20 points? Like say if every mech in the game received a 10% to 20% RT/LT/CT armor boost.

Could it result in more scenarios where people might make a conscious effort to target a mech's arms? Might it introduce a risk vs reward element that could contribute towards game depth and reduce the repetitiveness factor of things?

WDYT?

.

The heart of what your getting at is the port from TT to FPS is incomplete: SCALE matters. It fundamentally alters so many things. one item is armor per tons effective level of protection. Max armor should scale by surface area. It doesn't, so mechs like the atlas are fundamentally much weaker then needed and small fast mechs like the spider are buffed.

Size affects chance to hit and shot placement. large arms make it much easier to spread damage via toso twisting. small cicada arms are just about useless in that roll but do work to soak damage.

Basically the MWO port from TT is incomplete. The game is really by definition an ALPHA.

[Ultimax]

LordKnightFandragon, on 21 October 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

So overall, people dont use that much rear armor? I know I was running 20, but lowered it to 15 on my Whorehawks.

I strip down to single digits on most builds, survivability usually goes up as a result.

[YueFei]

Zeratul, you're also forgetting about internal structure health. The side torsos have more max armor and also more internal structure hitpoints than the arms. My HBK's arms have 16 structure, 32 max armor, but the shoulders (pre-quirk) have 24 structure, 48 max armor.

It would make no sense for me to run with side torso armor at 30/18, which is kind've how you've setup your example in the opening post.