107 replies to this topic

[Woodstock]

sorry regiment ... my bad

[Belrick]

Excellent thread excellent ideas. Also loving the ideas for ballistics weapons. As a ballistics weapon advocate, who also wants ammunition explosion, it'd be great to see a an actual reason to choose them.

Can't wait until my 6mg Jenner has a purpose! (I can dream)

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 01 December 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

Between this thread and the "Autocannon" thread I'm starting to feel like ACs need a more radical revision than can be derived from the TT stats...

I don't think they need a revision as much as someone needs to take a serious look at what role ballistic weapons play in the system and then actually implement the full advantages.

For example, we all know that in the "AC Vs Lasers" thread, an autocannon which utilizes standard ammo doesn't have much if any reason to suggest the player should pick a ballistic loadout over an energy loadout. To make up for this, we need to scour the books for perks to the ballistic side of the equation. Alternate ammo would be a start, followed by the ability to "walk" your fire across a target's different areas. That alone would make an AC/20 into a literal "Hose of Death".

Other perks would be that a ballistic weapon should cause an opponent's `Mech to shake when hit, throwing off his aim. This may only be a slight shudder when hit by an AC/2, but your view should shake violently if you're hit by an AC/20. Another idea, which you've already touched on, is that ballistics have an automatic chance of punching through armor even if it's fresh. A way to code this would be something like "If the armor value of a hitbox location is four times the damage value of a ballistics salvo or less, there's a 20% damage leak-through to the internal structure that can damage components." So if we break down an AC/20 salvo into four rounds which do five points of damage each, then any armor location that has 20 points of armor or less is going to be penetrated and the internal structure underneath is going to take 1 point of damage and any equipment there will be damaged.

So if you get good at walking your fire across a target, you could conceivably hit several different hit boxes on a `Mech and, in addition to wrecking most of his armor (he only had 20 armor to begin with, otherwise you wouldn't have a chance to crit him), shred a massive amount of equipment underneath as well without completely destroying the internal structure outright.

What's more, I could see this as still being within the spirit of the TT rules if not the wording. Walking your autocannon fire into several different components may not be easy and may not happen very often, but then again how often do you see three crits on a single critical hit roll? It does happen from time to time and this could be one way to model that event.

[VYCanis]

Paladin1, on 01 December 2011 - 05:39 AM, said:

snip

i like it

to add to that

HE rounds could have a much lower chance of penetrating intact armor, deal relatively low damage but applied to wide areas, however once they get into the internals they can deal really nasty damage. They could also have a bit more knock factor than the average AC round for that class.

standard HEAP would be the basic balanced round in between HE and AP working as you described.

AP rounds sacrifice damage, ammo capacity, and accuracy for having a higher punch through chance.

Other specialty munitions could essentially just be fancy HEAP rounds,
precision- heap rounds that can curve midflight a bit in order to hit.
caseless- heap rounds that use space saving measures to increase ammo capacity, but much more prone to heat and/or jams
incendiary- heap rounds that have a pyrophoric payload that lets them set stuff on fire, at the cost of a bit less damage and being more prone to ammo splosions.

flak and flechette only need apply if there are other unit types besides mechs to blow up.

[Gaius Cavadus]

God of War, on 01 December 2011 - 03:56 AM, said:

...it takes the kinetic force and absorbs it by spreading it to larger area, breaking in the process. modern Chobham-armour works the same way.

Except chobham isn't ablative and, like all armor throughout history, it can absolutely be pierced. The Javelin anti-tank missile can destroy any tank on the battlefield today and does so with a HEAT shaped charge.

Ablative armor doesn't really exist because why create something like that when you can simply create something that is 100% effective and doesn't lose that effectiveness after being struck?

The ablative armor concept was a TT simplification to make it easier on players. I'm not here to change that, as I hope my OP proved, but autocannons have always been gimp in TT.

They need some type of redesign and/or buff. I personally think that going with the cassette style ammunition model and the penetration model I described would be something worth testing. It would break down something like:

Rules
-Rounds Per Cassette: 5 (for all AC calibers)
-Penetration = The amount of armor that the AC can completely defeat and bypass.
-Damage increased +25% from TT values

What's Not Taken Into Account
-Rate of fire for rounds in a cassette.
-Reload rate between cassettes.

Edited by Cavadus, 02 December 2011 - 03:17 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Great Post Cavadus.

To go even further into the Meta/Sub section thought. How the Dev deal with How Armor is handled will be a key element of MWO.

Armored Plates.



As to ODD damage #'s landing into the divide by 2/4 zones, subtract in a Clockwise direction for ease of use. Or adjacent plates would creates areas that become divide by 4 zones, thus limiting the # of /2 zones to strictly outside plate edge hits.

P.S. I use 36 because I got 12 sections onto the plate. Imaging a much larger Plate with fewer sections if so desired.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 December 2011 - 10:25 AM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

3 armor points per plate section? That would make mechs insanely easy to kill. Every single weapon which does more than 3 damage will penetrate and hit internal (even a medium laser).

A PPC hit would transfer 7 damage to internals with every single hit. Could you imagine getting hit by a gauss rifle? Armor stops 3 damage but 13 damage continues on?

Yikes.

Edit: There was a reason why I didn't divide the meta-sections' armor valyues by the amount of sub-sections and distribute them equally. It would leave mechs wofeully underarmored.

Edited by Cavadus, 02 December 2011 - 10:29 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Cavadus, on 02 December 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:

3 armor points per plate section? That would make mechs insanely easy to kill. Every single weapon which does more than 3 damage will penetrate and hit internal (even a medium laser).

A PPC hit would transfer 7 damage to internals with every single hit. Could you imagine getting hit by a gauss rifle? Armor stops 3 damage but 13 damage continues on?

Yikes.

Edit: There was a reason why I didn't divide the meta-sections' armor values by the amount of sub-sections and distribute them equally. It would leave mechs woefully under-armored.

The whole plate value must be removed. The sections provide an easy damage distribution method is all. Section #'s and values are arbitrary as I noted, and would need Testing.

Or imagine the same Plate with only 2 sections each with 18 Pts

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 December 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

If each plate has to be removed to get to the internals, so the full 36 points of armor, what exactly does this add?

I don't think I'm understanding how this changes the end of result of not having any armor plates and just having the sub-section's armor value.

[Halfinax]

MaddMaxx, on 02 December 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

The whole plate value must be removed. The sections provide an easy damage distribution method is all. Section #'s and values are arbitrary as I noted, and would need Testing.

Or imagine the same Plate with only 2 sections each with 18 Pts

This would just keep the status quo, but making it more complex. I think Cavadus' concept has a great deal of merit, and I'd love to see it implemented. The only reason the sections are divided up, in previous titles, the way they are is because of either trying to be to true to the TT in a manner that is unnecessary, or possibly hardware limitations.

[Gaius Cavadus]

I updated Section 3. Penetration in the OP if anyone wants to take a look and comment.

[mekabuser]

Great well thought out posts like the OP hopefully send a loud clear message to the devs about just exactly what is important to many . Its not visual, its the best combo of gameplay and sim that mimics movement of mechs and the damage they deal to each other.
I specifically love the concept that "yes TT provides a nice set of values, but we can expand on that" especially concerning armor and damage levels.
Its something the guys at MWLL have done fairly well. EVery class of mech has teeth on the battlefield because they upped the armor values across the board to make the lights survivable and in some cases<raven> tough, with the heavies and in some cases assaults something that is truly fearsome.
this one act alone really increases engagement time.
Additional hit zones on mechs as described by OP are another great, and more realistic method.

[Gunman5000]

I like the revised section on penetration Cadavus, but I'm not exactly clear what you mean by the armour that can be defeated.

When you say that an AC20 does 5 dmg per bullet and can bypass 4 points of armour, do you mean that it a single round will both destroy the 4 points of armour AND deal 5 points of damage to internal hit boxes? (I'm assuming this is what you meant) Otherwise it would seem that it just would destroy the 4 points of armour and deal 1 point of damage to internal hit boxes (the way the TT rules already have autocannons, and every other weapon, working).

Just thought it could use a bit of clarification, seems like a paragraph is missing to explain what is meant by bypassing armour and/or penetration of armour.

[Halfinax]

He means that it ignores the armor, and goes straight to internal structure/critical slots.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think the modified penetration looks to work better. How does a headshot work under this system?

[Gaius Cavadus]

Gunman5000, on 02 December 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

...but I'm not exactly clear what you mean by the armour that can be defeated?

Halfinax, on 02 December 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

He means that it ignores the armor, and goes straight to internal structure/critical slots.

This is correct.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 December 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

I think the modified penetration looks to work better. How does a headshot work under this system?

Great question. I'm not sure, TBH. A special exception for penetration might need to be made regarding cockpit shots.

This is definitely something that would have to be tested to see how frustrating/rewarding it is to get headcapped by ACs with and without penetration.

[Phades]

Cavadus, on 02 December 2011 - 06:59 AM, said:

Rules
-Rounds Per Cassette: 5 (for all AC calibers)
-Penetration = The amount of armor that the AC can completely defeat and bypass.
-Damage increased +25% from TT values

What's Not Taken Into Account
-Rate of fire for rounds in a cassette.
-Reload rate between cassettes.

I think AC2s should be handled a little different. Let them fire single shot rounds at 2 damage per, but drop the recycle time between shots in order for them to be made more viable by other comparable alternatives and give the feel of a rapid fire weapon. It would also give it a better chance to cycle through 45 (simulated) shots with it before getting fragged. When I think to myself, what do I want to spend 7-8 tons (minimum) and 2-5 critical slots (or more) on, AC2 is not it.

Other than that good stuff. I'm leery about straight pen rules and variable munition types in general though. Simple sectioning off the armor and layering it appropriately in order to convey the concept of penetration through force of impact and repeat damage to the same small (and i stress small) damage point.

[Gunman5000]

Sorry if this seems a bit redundant to people, just wanted to make sure I understand this properly.

So if the above statement about ignoring armour is true for penetration does it destroy the armour or is the armour still there?

In essence, if it destroyed the armour it would mean that an AC-20 "round" (doing 5 dmg according to the chart) striking a section with only 4 points of armour would remove the 4 points of armour and then apply 5 points of damage to the internal hit boxes. Meaning it would do the equivalent of 9 points of damage in the TT rules, correct?

If that is the case, then great, that would definately add a heft bonus to the ACs. Though, and I know people hate these things, I think it may be necessary to make it have a chance (I know I know, that probably means a RNG) to penetrate based on how much lower the armour is compared to the damage. Meaning that using an AC-20's 5 dmg "round" striking a section with 4 armour points it would have 20% chance of penetration (random arbritary number only used for example). If the same round struck a section with 3 armour points it would have a 40%, 2 armour would be 60%, 1 armour would be 80%. Just thinking that a guaranteed penetration may actually overpower an AC depending on the situation, gameplay testing would obviously be required. Then again it would add a nice tactical element to know that if you melt enough armour off with the laser before firing that AC-20 on the Hunchback, your going to smash through it and give the enemy Dragon a REALLY bad day.

[EDMW CSN]

Cavadus, on 04 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

This is definitely something that would have to be tested to see how frustrating/rewarding it is to get headcapped by ACs with and without penetration.

Not an issue. Not many mechs get headcapped by a weapon that actually needs LEAD time.
If the player nailed head sniping, let them have it.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Especially in urban combat it doesnt necessarily take much leading, especilly if you are at point blank range. Alternatively what about the (much quoted) 4 ML's? Again at v. close range? I think it's something that does need to be considered as we can't expect to get maps set up for long range combat.