11 replies to this topic

[Nishnabe]

Ok I was thinking about how max armor levels are based on tonnage, and how mechs that traditionally have heavy or light armor, currently don't in MWO. IMO this limits diversity between mech chassis. Hard point layout hit boxes, and certain small quirks are the only source of variance between mechs of the same weight. I looked through some of the threads about this. Some players want the armor levels doubled. Other players countered that the levels were already doubled from TT. What I think went wrong is that when they doubled the armor values, they lowered the discrepancy between weight classes. Heavies and Assaults aren't quite the tanks they should be anymore. I'd like to see a change, but I'm not sure what that change should be. I'd also like to see max armor variance between mechs of the same tonnage, hunchies and atlases should be able to pack on more armor than other mechs of the same weight. I think this would add more versatility and increase role warfare. I would love to hear some thoughts on this

Edited by Nishnabe, 03 November 2014 - 09:44 PM.

[FupDup]

No "discrepancies" were lowered due to double armor, the ratios are the same but with different numbers. 2/4 is the same as 1/2 or 3/6.

The real issue making robots easier to put down is probably convergence, which lets us bypass a large segment of the armor on a mech. We get to drill straight into the torsos instead of throw down 2d6 dice to see where our shots land (note: I'm not literally proposing that we adopt a 2d6 targeting system, I'm just providing an example of the environment where our armor values are derived from).


As for certain mechs being tougher than their counterparts of equal weight, quirks should hopefully accomplish that. Maybe in the future, specific armor types could only be carried by those designated "toughguy" mechs like ECM and JJs are restricted.

Edited by FupDup, 03 November 2014 - 09:48 PM.

[Josef Nader]

What this will do is keep anyone from ever bringing a mech with below 95%+ armor. Nobody would willingly subject themselves to piloting a Jägermech at stock armor values. Nobody would willingly pilot a mech missing several tons of armor from key locations. Stripping all the armor off of your mech's empty arms is one thing. Stripping 20-30 points of armor out of a mech's torso is suicide.

Edited by Josef Nader, 04 November 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Gamuray]

Excuse me Josef, my hunchback with only a hunch left is perfectly viable! I only has armor on the legs, rt, ct, and head, but it still works, and I willingly subject myself to that! "Nobody" is obviously a bit exaggerated =P

On a serious note,guy 2 places above this post explained the reason quite well.

[Tombstoner]

Mech size had no affect of chance to hit in TT. That is not true for MWO. speed and armor interact altering TTK disproportionately for a 20 ton vs 100 ton mech. IT is easy to hit an atlas at any range. you can effectively place your shots at all times. this is not true for mechs like the spider. then ad in the removal of the 2d6 hit location system and you have effectively Nerfed the atlases armor.

The only way to fix it correctly is to build a gunnery range to generate data in a controlled way. that way you can explore/model the affects/interactions between armor, speed and mech size. once done i would predict that 100 ton mechs need an armor co factor to fix the problem. one ton of armor at 155kph provides more protection then 1 ton at 45 kph. thats shy you can simply buff base armor. it needs to be done on a case by case basis partially because art also affects mech durability.

The game is still using TT values in a FPS game, so yea TTK is artificially low for that reason alone.

[Kiiyor]

Nishnabe, on 03 November 2014 - 09:43 PM, said:

Ok I was thinking about how max armor levels are based on tonnage, and how mechs that traditionally have heavy or light armor, currently don't in MWO. IMO this limits diversity between mech chassis. Hard point layout hit boxes, and certain small quirks are the only source of variance between mechs of the same weight. I looked through some of the threads about this. Some players want the armor levels doubled. Other players countered that the levels were already doubled from TT. What I think went wrong is that when they doubled the armor values, they lowered the discrepancy between weight classes. Heavies and Assaults aren't quite the tanks they should be anymore. I'd like to see a change, but I'm not sure what that change should be. I'd also like to see max armor variance between mechs of the same tonnage, hunchies and atlases should be able to pack on more armor than other mechs of the same weight. I think this would add more versatility and increase role warfare. I would love to hear some thoughts on this

Well, they are kind of addressing this (somewhat) tomorrow with perks. Many mechs with especially vulnerable hitboxes are receiving either internal or armour buffs.

It's yet to be seen if this will be effective, but IMHO, it's a good start.

[AlexEss]

Gamuray, on 04 November 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

Excuse me Josef, my hunchback with only a hunch left is perfectly viable! I only has armor on the legs, rt, ct, and head, but it still works, and I willingly subject myself to that! "Nobody" is obviously a bit exaggerated =P

On a serious note,guy 2 places above this post explained the reason quite well.

Well now try this... Keep the exact amount of total armor but spread it evenly over the mech... Heck even more fun... try dropping it a third and doing the same... Would you do that?

If not i think he was closer then you.

Edited by AlexEss, 04 November 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[kapusta11]

When you put it that way, assigning armor based on mech's size and hitboxes would fit MWO better.

[Johnny Z]

Tombstoner, on 04 November 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

Mech size had no affect of chance to hit in TT. That is not true for MWO. speed and armor interact altering TTK disproportionately for a 20 ton vs 100 ton mech. IT is easy to hit an atlas at any range. you can effectively place your shots at all times. this is not true for mechs like the spider. then ad in the removal of the 2d6 hit location system and you have effectively Nerfed the atlases armor.

The only way to fix it correctly is to build a gunnery range to generate data in a controlled way. that way you can explore/model the affects/interactions between armor, speed and mech size. once done i would predict that 100 ton mechs need an armor co factor to fix the problem. one ton of armor at 155kph provides more protection then 1 ton at 45 kph. thats shy you can simply buff base armor. it needs to be done on a case by case basis partially because art also affects mech durability.

The game is still using TT values in a FPS game, so yea TTK is artificially low for that reason alone.

Good point.

[Kiryuin Ragyo]

More armor - More TTK.

[Mcgral18]

Max armour based on stock armour; I think Koniving's idea was stock+100? With Ferro adding another bit.


Suddenly, a (certain) Lolcust has the same armour cap as the Jenner D, since both come stock at 128; but both would have the cap of 228 points; the Jenner D would lose a total of 10 pts, although if you go the Ferro route, you could exceed the current cap.


It would diversify the mechs; Hunches would out armour the 55 ton SHDs.

[Lefty Lucy]

Doing max armor based on stock would not increase diversity. In fact, it would have the opposite effect as people would flock to chassis with only good stock armor.