One thing that ALL incarnations of MW games have done is the implementation of the body structures ported over from TT (LA, LT, LTR, CT, CTR, H, RT, RTR, RA, LL, RL).
This works in TT because the hit locations are determined randomly so not very many shots tend to hit the same body section frequently.
This has never been the case with any MW titles. The shots go where you aim so most or all of your damage goes to just one or two sections.
You have to do one or two things.
1. Introduce a cone of fire to add an element of error to where the shots got.
And/or
2. Break up the body in to much smaller locations. Back in the day computers didn't have the horsepower to track a ton of data so it was understandable that a leg was a single piece with a single armor/damage-value. Now, however the cpus can handle a ton more. A leg could have a foot, lower leg, and upper leg ... at the very least. The armor value you give to a leg would be the armor rating for each section of the leg (note, it shouldn't weigh more because of this).
5
How To Increase Mech Durability?
Started by Tlords, Dec 01 2014 03:57 PM
59 replies to this topic
#22
-
-
- 196 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 08:12 AM
topgun505, on 02 December 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
1. Introduce a cone of fire to add an element of error to where the shots got.
MW should be mostly about heat management, weapon group management and positioning. Although accuracy is important, it should not be as important as it is in your standard FPS. Cone of Fire will help with that.
#23
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 5,851 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:17 AM
Gauvan, on 01 December 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:
stuff
One way of addressing this without punishing good aim is to change the way lasers apply damage. Right now each ‘tic’ does the same amount of damage. What if the damage per tic started low but grew the longer the beam was on target? Losing the target would reset the counter. The total damage would be the same if the beam is aimed but if it’s just being flashed around the damage is minimal.
stuff
One way of addressing this without punishing good aim is to change the way lasers apply damage. Right now each ‘tic’ does the same amount of damage. What if the damage per tic started low but grew the longer the beam was on target? Losing the target would reset the counter. The total damage would be the same if the beam is aimed but if it’s just being flashed around the damage is minimal.
stuff
If "everyone" was using just Lasers then that would work. Increasing "exposure" time to gain max damage with burn time based weapons, vs FLD based weapons would likely not end well. The Clans have to burn almost 2X now as it is. So one needs a lot of flashlights to do a lot of damage.
Edited by Almond Brown, 02 December 2014 - 11:18 AM.
#24
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 5,851 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:25 AM
The Dreaded Baron B Killer, on 02 December 2014 - 03:51 AM, said:
It's interesting that when this issue comes up there are some interesting suggestions made.
but let's be honest, the biggest issue with TTK is due to map design and drop points.
In the original MW series, you had large maps, where you had to walk for distances to reach areas and targets. If lances were spread out more, there would be smaller engagements happening. Right now, because of the map and drop designs, you end up being close not to 1-2 mechs, but sometimes 1-2 lances.
add in ranges / player accuracy / weapon balance issues and you have situation roullette.. sometimes you're in a position to do good, and others you are simply cannon fodder...
This is what happens when a tactical military style game is turned into a FPS style shooter.
If the maps actually had more to them you could actually be more tactical and force more team style play in pugging. Things have gotten better lately, but they also got worse again with lots of LRM based builds flooding the solo queue again, showing just how lop sided the game play is. btw not complaining bout the lrmfest, just saying it has shown that the style of gameplay people like (run in and just shoot) doesn't work and you actually have to THINK before moving around like you are an invincible war machine.
and that is really a key issue: tactics/thinking/positioning give way to "i wanna blow **** up coz its cool coz mechs are cool ermagawd I'm dead in 10 seconds wtf how did that happen"!
just my two cents.
but let's be honest, the biggest issue with TTK is due to map design and drop points.
In the original MW series, you had large maps, where you had to walk for distances to reach areas and targets. If lances were spread out more, there would be smaller engagements happening. Right now, because of the map and drop designs, you end up being close not to 1-2 mechs, but sometimes 1-2 lances.
add in ranges / player accuracy / weapon balance issues and you have situation roullette.. sometimes you're in a position to do good, and others you are simply cannon fodder...
This is what happens when a tactical military style game is turned into a FPS style shooter.
If the maps actually had more to them you could actually be more tactical and force more team style play in pugging. Things have gotten better lately, but they also got worse again with lots of LRM based builds flooding the solo queue again, showing just how lop sided the game play is. btw not complaining bout the lrmfest, just saying it has shown that the style of gameplay people like (run in and just shoot) doesn't work and you actually have to THINK before moving around like you are an invincible war machine.
and that is really a key issue: tactics/thinking/positioning give way to "i wanna blow **** up coz its cool coz mechs are cool ermagawd I'm dead in 10 seconds wtf how did that happen"!
just my two cents.
It is unlikely they will increase the Timer for PUG play. If it takes 6-7 minutes just to locate the other team, a Dead scout could mean a Loss in Match with little time to recover. (The other team is smart).
CW is slated to be 20-30 minutes, which surprisingly is NOT 4 x 15. Wonder why...
As has been noted many times on this subject. Make the Mechs tougher and it just encourages a more FLD focus to destroy the enemy faster, or at a rate that is similar to before the change.
Want to make your Mech seem tougher? Survive more Matches with only +/- 35% of the original Armor and Internals intact. It will make you think that your Mech, and its Pilot, has Brass/Titanium hanging items... lol
Edited by Almond Brown, 02 December 2014 - 11:27 AM.
#25
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 413 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:26 AM
I like the idea of higher points on internals, but I think it should be tied to slots for weapons / internals & the actual internal components (actuators, joints, structure) should have a higher value per slot. Weapons should be disabled when 1/5 of their critical slots are destroyed, but the remaining portion should still act to soak up damage. True “critical” hits on the gauss cold be figured the same as current, where a “critical hit” made it explode if it wasn’t already disabled from destroying its slots.
I’m thinking of values along the lines of:
A joint (wrist / elbow / knee / shoulder) taking 15 points of damage to destroy, with full functionality until it was destroyed to make the programming simpler. (More complicated would be slowing / limiting the joint at partial damage.)
Structure would take 15 points each slot to destroy.
Armor would soak up 5 points to destroy a slot. That’s AFTER the armor value was stripped off that section (so the armor slots would represent the tangled mess of metal left behind, that still soaks up random shots).
Weapons, ammo, equipment and engine slots would take 10 points each to destroy. Any of these would be disabled when 1/5 of their critical slots are destroyed, but the remaining portion should still act to soak up damage. Empty ammo bays would still have to be destroyed.
A single hit to a section would dump into a single slot (at random). So an AC20 could ONLY destroy 1 slot at most, assuming the armor was gone (or it punched through what was left). An entire section would be blown off when all the structure in that section was destroyed. So to take out the side torso of a mech, assuming it had 2 structure slots in it, would take a minimum of 30 points and 2 weapon hits AFTER the armor was gone. It could take considerably more, if you hit all the “guts” of it first.
Engines could be destroyed / disabled in 2 ways. Destroy a given number of engine slots or destroy all the structure in the section that housed the engine slots.
While it would favor the survivability of bigger mechs, that’s closer to reality anyway. A bigger armored machine takes more to destroy. It wouldn’t favor them too heavily, as the weapons could be disabled just as easily as in a small mech once the armor was punched through. And just because they would survive longer wouldn’t mean they still had weapons. They might just survive as something to soak up damage and distract opponents.
Heavy weapons such as the AC20s would not really be favored because while they might survive a single slot being destroyed, they would also be more likely to be hit once the armor was gone than a smaller weapon. Massed smaller weapons (such as grouped small or medium lasers) when alphaed could have each weapon count as a separate “hit” hitting a random slot on the internals or could count them all as hitting one slot (this would require testing to balance).
Mechs with lots of open space (empty slots) might be an issue. Maybe consider the empty slots as 1 point each, with any number of empty slots in a section being able to be destroyed by a single hit?
As an example, a mech with 50 points of armor on the CT would take a minimum of 70 points of CT damage to destroy.
A possible idea tied into this would be that instead of the slots being destroyed at random, destroy them from the bottom up in a build. That adds a level of planning where you might want juggle how you put stuff in the section.
I’m thinking of values along the lines of:
A joint (wrist / elbow / knee / shoulder) taking 15 points of damage to destroy, with full functionality until it was destroyed to make the programming simpler. (More complicated would be slowing / limiting the joint at partial damage.)
Structure would take 15 points each slot to destroy.
Armor would soak up 5 points to destroy a slot. That’s AFTER the armor value was stripped off that section (so the armor slots would represent the tangled mess of metal left behind, that still soaks up random shots).
Weapons, ammo, equipment and engine slots would take 10 points each to destroy. Any of these would be disabled when 1/5 of their critical slots are destroyed, but the remaining portion should still act to soak up damage. Empty ammo bays would still have to be destroyed.
A single hit to a section would dump into a single slot (at random). So an AC20 could ONLY destroy 1 slot at most, assuming the armor was gone (or it punched through what was left). An entire section would be blown off when all the structure in that section was destroyed. So to take out the side torso of a mech, assuming it had 2 structure slots in it, would take a minimum of 30 points and 2 weapon hits AFTER the armor was gone. It could take considerably more, if you hit all the “guts” of it first.
Engines could be destroyed / disabled in 2 ways. Destroy a given number of engine slots or destroy all the structure in the section that housed the engine slots.
While it would favor the survivability of bigger mechs, that’s closer to reality anyway. A bigger armored machine takes more to destroy. It wouldn’t favor them too heavily, as the weapons could be disabled just as easily as in a small mech once the armor was punched through. And just because they would survive longer wouldn’t mean they still had weapons. They might just survive as something to soak up damage and distract opponents.
Heavy weapons such as the AC20s would not really be favored because while they might survive a single slot being destroyed, they would also be more likely to be hit once the armor was gone than a smaller weapon. Massed smaller weapons (such as grouped small or medium lasers) when alphaed could have each weapon count as a separate “hit” hitting a random slot on the internals or could count them all as hitting one slot (this would require testing to balance).
Mechs with lots of open space (empty slots) might be an issue. Maybe consider the empty slots as 1 point each, with any number of empty slots in a section being able to be destroyed by a single hit?
As an example, a mech with 50 points of armor on the CT would take a minimum of 70 points of CT damage to destroy.
A possible idea tied into this would be that instead of the slots being destroyed at random, destroy them from the bottom up in a build. That adds a level of planning where you might want juggle how you put stuff in the section.
#26
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 5,851 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:32 AM
The Boz, on 02 December 2014 - 04:21 AM, said:
I still maintain that 50% damage spread is the way to go, far more elegant solution that creates the least balance problems.
I shoot you from the side and hit your arm I get only 50% of my damage? If not where does the other half spread to and how?
Dead sections do that now. Perhaps they could increase that spread rate to slow TTK a bit.
Edited by Almond Brown, 02 December 2014 - 11:38 AM.
#28
-
-
- Moderate Giver
- 1,969 posts
Member
- LocationToronto, ON
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:37 AM
topgun505, on 02 December 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
2. Break up the body in to much smaller locations. Back in the day computers didn't have the horsepower to track a ton of data so it was understandable that a leg was a single piece with a single armor/damage-value. Now, however the cpus can handle a ton more. A leg could have a foot, lower leg, and upper leg ... at the very least. The armor value you give to a leg would be the armor rating for each section of the leg (note, it shouldn't weigh more because of this).
I've been suggesting something like this for ages now.
The hitboxes on our Mechs are way too large, especially when you consider how pixel-perfect our aim is.
Like you said, each leg should have 3+ hitboxes, same with the arms and the Torso!
#29
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 249 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:46 AM
Reticule sway while moving based on throttle percentage (not ground speed). Solves many problems at once and requires no RNG.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
#30
-
-
- Moderate Giver
- 1,969 posts
Member
- LocationToronto, ON
Posted 02 December 2014 - 11:49 AM
Blakkstar, on 02 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:
Reticule sway while moving based on throttle percentage (not ground speed). Solves many problems at once and requires no RNG.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
Although I like the idea, I don't think it'll solve the pinpoint problem.
Even if the reticule is swaying, if somebody Alpha's all of the weapons will all fire at the same time regardless of where the reticule is. Sure, this might have people hitting a ST when they wanted to hit the CT, but their entire Alpha will still be heading to one location.
It would increase TTK though, which would be nice.
Edited by Fut, 02 December 2014 - 11:50 AM.
#31
-
-
- 338 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 12:08 PM
Almond Brown, on 02 December 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:
If "everyone" was using just Lasers then that would work. Increasing "exposure" time to gain max damage with burn time based weapons, vs FLD based weapons would likely not end well. The Clans have to burn almost 2X now as it is. So one needs a lot of flashlights to do a lot of damage.
Yeah, I've thought about this some more since I posted and it's a bad idea all around.
What about capping pinpoint damage to a location and 'splashing' leftover damage to an adjoining location, perhaps at a reduced level?
#32
-
-
- The Scythe
- 176 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 01:30 PM
I am agreeing with the ideas here. I love the idea of larger maps and extending time to kill (TTK). It is much harder to land a pin point shot at range. I so agree with this. The engagement ranges we have today are too close.
#33
-
-
- The Merciless
- 1,035 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 01:47 PM
How To Increase Mech Durability?
Rule #1: Don't expose yourself to enemy fire of a whole lance.
Rule #2: Try to get the enemy to do exactly the opposite.
Rule #3: ...
Rule #4: Profit!
Rule #1: Don't expose yourself to enemy fire of a whole lance.
Rule #2: Try to get the enemy to do exactly the opposite.
Rule #3: ...
Rule #4: Profit!
#34
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 3,272 posts
Member
- LocationKing Of Flower Beds
Posted 02 December 2014 - 01:51 PM
Tlords, on 01 December 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:
I believe a mechwarrior should feel his mech being destroyed around him part-by-part. With the current game, even with torso twisting, it is amazing how fast sections of mechs are destroyed.
There are huge masses of metal inside mechs - weapons, heatsinks, and electronics - that mean nothing for mitigating damage. So let me start with this idea. It is an idea that
- Keeps the power of the clan’s weapons.
- Benefits every mech.
- Makes Inner Sphere mechs more durable than their Clan cousins.
- Shows the Clans making their weapons lighter and smaller by sacrificing durability to gain firepower.
- Makes Clan mechs more like Ferrari sports cars and the IS more like Ford F150 4WD pickup trucks.
- Makes the decision between Endo-Steel and Ferro-Fibrous harder.
The idea is that each weapon, heatsink, and piece of electronics has a durability rating based on its mass. This mass must be destroyed before targeting the interior structure.
Today, every weapon in MWO has 10 hit points, except for Gauss which has 5. These hitpoints do not count towards defending the mech. This idea treats equipment like engines. It is easier for a single pistol shot to disable a lawn mower engine than a large diesel truck engine. This means an AC/20 should take more damage than a small laser before it stops working based on its mass. Why? Because weapon designers build weapons to take a beating. The more massive the weapon the more they hardened it for the rigors of warfare. The more they over-engineered it to take a beating. It is harder to destroy a main deck gun on a battleship than a musket.
As an example, the AC/20 weighs the same as the new hero Locust with its armament and electronics striped. Yep 14 tons. A Hunchback with an AC20 in its right torso is essentially carrying a compacted Locust. It requires a minimum of 84 pts of damage to destroy a locust shooting from its side: 56 for armor on an arm, side torso, and center torso plus 28 points of internal structure. The AC20 weighing as much as a locust needs similar characteristics. The question is how to assign this with a formula the works for every weapon.
I used the medium laser as the base for durability and assigned 5 pts of damage needed to destroy the inner sphere version and 4 pts of damage to destroy the clan version With Ferro-Fibrous armor these values change to 5.6 for IS and 4.8 for Clan. Based on this, some example Inner Sphere and Clan weapon durabilities follow. Two values are shown. One with regular armor and one with Ferro-Fibrous Armor. The weapons on mechs with Ferro-Fibrous provide more durability.
Inner sphere weapon durability (regular armor / with Ferro-Fibrous)
Small laser - 3 / 3 pts
Medium laser - 5 / 6 pts
Medium Pulse laser - 10 / 11 pts (Medium pulse laser are more durable than normal lasers)
Large Laser - 25 / 28 pts
PPC - 35 / 39 pts
AC5 - 40 / 45 pts.
AC20 - 70 / 78 pts
LRM5 - 10 / 11 pts
LRM20 with Artemis IV - 55 / 62 pts
Gauss - 5 pts / 5.6 (only exception to the rule)
Clan weapon durability (regular armor / with Ferro-Fibrous)
C-ER small laser - 3 / 4 pts
C- ER medium laser - 4 / 5 pts
C-Medium pulse - 8 / 10 pts
C-ER Large Laser - 16 / 19 pts
C-ER-PPC - 24 / 29 pts
C-UAC5 - 28 / 34 pts
C-UAC20 - 48 / 58 pts
C-LRM5 - 4 / 5 pts
C-LRM20 with Artemis IV - 24 / 29 pts
C-Gauss - 4 / 5 pts (only exception to the rule)
I am sure these values need play testing and adjustment. Also the Gauss Rifle needs adjustment; I chose to make it fragile under a belief that to achieve its firepower, extreme range, velocity, and minimal heat protection was sacrificed in building it.
I am looking for ideas on how to make this idea better...
There are huge masses of metal inside mechs - weapons, heatsinks, and electronics - that mean nothing for mitigating damage. So let me start with this idea. It is an idea that
- Keeps the power of the clan’s weapons.
- Benefits every mech.
- Makes Inner Sphere mechs more durable than their Clan cousins.
- Shows the Clans making their weapons lighter and smaller by sacrificing durability to gain firepower.
- Makes Clan mechs more like Ferrari sports cars and the IS more like Ford F150 4WD pickup trucks.
- Makes the decision between Endo-Steel and Ferro-Fibrous harder.
The idea is that each weapon, heatsink, and piece of electronics has a durability rating based on its mass. This mass must be destroyed before targeting the interior structure.
Today, every weapon in MWO has 10 hit points, except for Gauss which has 5. These hitpoints do not count towards defending the mech. This idea treats equipment like engines. It is easier for a single pistol shot to disable a lawn mower engine than a large diesel truck engine. This means an AC/20 should take more damage than a small laser before it stops working based on its mass. Why? Because weapon designers build weapons to take a beating. The more massive the weapon the more they hardened it for the rigors of warfare. The more they over-engineered it to take a beating. It is harder to destroy a main deck gun on a battleship than a musket.
As an example, the AC/20 weighs the same as the new hero Locust with its armament and electronics striped. Yep 14 tons. A Hunchback with an AC20 in its right torso is essentially carrying a compacted Locust. It requires a minimum of 84 pts of damage to destroy a locust shooting from its side: 56 for armor on an arm, side torso, and center torso plus 28 points of internal structure. The AC20 weighing as much as a locust needs similar characteristics. The question is how to assign this with a formula the works for every weapon.
I used the medium laser as the base for durability and assigned 5 pts of damage needed to destroy the inner sphere version and 4 pts of damage to destroy the clan version With Ferro-Fibrous armor these values change to 5.6 for IS and 4.8 for Clan. Based on this, some example Inner Sphere and Clan weapon durabilities follow. Two values are shown. One with regular armor and one with Ferro-Fibrous Armor. The weapons on mechs with Ferro-Fibrous provide more durability.
Inner sphere weapon durability (regular armor / with Ferro-Fibrous)
Small laser - 3 / 3 pts
Medium laser - 5 / 6 pts
Medium Pulse laser - 10 / 11 pts (Medium pulse laser are more durable than normal lasers)
Large Laser - 25 / 28 pts
PPC - 35 / 39 pts
AC5 - 40 / 45 pts.
AC20 - 70 / 78 pts
LRM5 - 10 / 11 pts
LRM20 with Artemis IV - 55 / 62 pts
Gauss - 5 pts / 5.6 (only exception to the rule)
Clan weapon durability (regular armor / with Ferro-Fibrous)
C-ER small laser - 3 / 4 pts
C- ER medium laser - 4 / 5 pts
C-Medium pulse - 8 / 10 pts
C-ER Large Laser - 16 / 19 pts
C-ER-PPC - 24 / 29 pts
C-UAC5 - 28 / 34 pts
C-UAC20 - 48 / 58 pts
C-LRM5 - 4 / 5 pts
C-LRM20 with Artemis IV - 24 / 29 pts
C-Gauss - 4 / 5 pts (only exception to the rule)
I am sure these values need play testing and adjustment. Also the Gauss Rifle needs adjustment; I chose to make it fragile under a belief that to achieve its firepower, extreme range, velocity, and minimal heat protection was sacrificed in building it.
I am looking for ideas on how to make this idea better...
How can you make this better... How about have each weapon add internal structure along with durability. >: ) Of course ac20 would make anything a walking god soo maybe not.
#35
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 2,193 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 02:27 PM
bluepiglet, on 01 December 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:
The level of military technology of Clan is meant to be centuries ahead of the IS when the Clan invasion occurs. Making their meches more fragile than the IS counter parts does not make any sense.
Just make Clan as OP are they are supposed to and set the game mode to 10 Clan vs 12 IS already.
Just make Clan as OP are they are supposed to and set the game mode to 10 Clan vs 12 IS already.
The A-10 is one of the toughest air craft still flying. it was developed in the late 1960's.... The F-35 not yet deployed, can crash from hitting a bird. New tech is not automatically more durable.
#36
-
-
- The Scythe
- 176 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 02:36 PM
The A-10. A plan built around a 30mm Gatling gun. A finer plane has never been built.
Nothing says love, more than wrapping your pilot in a titanium bathtub!
Nothing says love, more than wrapping your pilot in a titanium bathtub!
#37
-
-
- 373 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 03:05 PM
Blakkstar, on 02 December 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:
Reticule sway while moving based on throttle percentage (not ground speed). Solves many problems at once and requires no RNG.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
1. Creates an exposure penalty for stopping to make pinpoint shots.
2. Modest sway while "walking" (50%) throttle disrupts pinpoint alpha while still allowing for accurate fire.
3. More sway while "running" (100%) throttle makes accurate fire at range difficult
4. Quirks given to speed-dependent lights reduce the movement penalty
5. Managing throttle and shooting while on the move emphasize skill
Reticule bounce/sway was a thing way back in the days of MW2 that essentially performed the same function. Making shooting more difficult based on movement has a history in TT, MW video games, and is the clearest and most easily implemented solution to pinpoint alpha.
If you think about it, thats how it would be. Most torso weapons don't seem to have any kind of movement allowing them to track a HUD reticule. They just point exactly where your torso points. So logically, they should move up & down every time your mech takes a step, with the bigger the steps (i.e. running) the more violent the movement.
I also really like the OP's idea.
#38
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 413 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 03:06 PM
Breaking the mech into more sections is not the simple solution it sounds.
- it requires every mech in the game to be re thought out to re-map hit zones and assign armor values to each section.
- If you keep the same total armor as for the old hit zone, you have to let players decide how much for each new smaller zone and it makes the problem worse. Let’s say you have 40 armor max on a leg now. Divide that into three areas? Your TTK just went into the toilet, as a single hit anywhere in the leg with a gauss just legged your mech.
- If you increase the armor so each smaller hit zone has the same max as the original hit zone (so in my example you could have 40 on each section of the leg), it still doesn’t affect a pinpoint alpha. A alpha that currently dumps 40 points into the leg would just dump 40 points into a smaller section of the leg. It WOULD, however, handicap lasers, missiles, machine guns, LBX cannons and Clan ACs – basically anything that relies on Time on Target, volume of fire or multiple projectiles to do damage. You’d wind up with IS AC10s & 20s, Gauss Rifles and PPCs as the only viable weapons.
Actually, the simplest thing they could do would be adjust weapons damage vs. armor points so that 1 does not equal 1.
Globally through the program, if they made 1 point of damage done by any weapon only destroy 0.9 points of armor (or structure / weapon / whatever) they would increase TTK by 10%. If they made the change small, just a 5% - 15% change per patch, and didn’t tell anyone, the player base would largely only notice the matches lasted longer. Only those who live by one-shotting opponent would really notice and scream.
A 15% increase in TTK would be:
Assume current average TTK / TTD is 5 minutes. That would bump it to 5 minutes 45 seconds.
I doubt anyone outside the people who rely on single shot kills would notice that.
#39
-
-
- 3,607 posts
Member
- LocationLos Angeles, CA
Posted 02 December 2014 - 09:05 PM
I don't think a weapon should have HP comparable to a mech of equal tonnage. The reason bring, equipment HP is based on the required damage to destroy the weapon, yes but not in the literally. Equipment destruction would/should more accurately be describe as inoperable.
Just like a mech doesn't require all it's HP removed before it's rendered inoperable(destroyed), there is no reason to assume an AC20 needs a full Locust worth of damage to render it inoperable(keep in mind, armor weight of the Locust should not be included). For simplicity, the equipment needs to only have a reasonably determined % of its max potential HP removed to effectively render it inoperable...therefore it's actual HP need not be any more than that %...unless we plan to give equipment component parts with their own HP.
So if an AC20 arguably should have 84HP(once again, assuming that doesn't include HP from the Locust's armor weight), one could assume damage of 10-20% of that 84 is all that's required to render it inoperable....so just give the AC20 a HP value of 8-16.
Just like a mech doesn't require all it's HP removed before it's rendered inoperable(destroyed), there is no reason to assume an AC20 needs a full Locust worth of damage to render it inoperable(keep in mind, armor weight of the Locust should not be included). For simplicity, the equipment needs to only have a reasonably determined % of its max potential HP removed to effectively render it inoperable...therefore it's actual HP need not be any more than that %...unless we plan to give equipment component parts with their own HP.
So if an AC20 arguably should have 84HP(once again, assuming that doesn't include HP from the Locust's armor weight), one could assume damage of 10-20% of that 84 is all that's required to render it inoperable....so just give the AC20 a HP value of 8-16.
#40
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 2,277 posts
Member
Posted 02 December 2014 - 09:50 PM
The best way to increase your mechs durability is to kill the enemy. This simple tactic greatly reduce the incoming DPS substantially.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
