10 replies to this topic

[Kodyn]

So most of my concerns were at least partially allayed by the video, thanks Phil for doing that.

One thing I'd still really like to see is more armor quirks instead of so much structure, and I think that many of the mechs that previously had large weapons buffs should be candidates for these durability quirks.

I still think the sensor system could use some work, even if it is something like straight ripping off EVE and giving mechs of varying weight classes different sensor "signatures", ie a Locust would take longer to be locked on to than a Direwolf. I think Phil actually alluded to something like this, so maybe that's part of what's in the works already.

I'm of the opinion that if we were to mostly lose weapon quirks on the IS side altogether, that would be acceptable if we got enough durability and mobility quirks to compensate. Again I stress that armor would in most cases be more beneficial than structure however.

I think the video really did pretty much cover all of my other concerns, so I guess now all I can do is wait and see how things shake out after they put the PTS back up.

[FupDup]

A note on structure quirks is that they increase fall damage on the legs, so most leg structure really should be replaced with leg armor...

[Lily from animove]

FupDup, on 14 September 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:

A note on structure quirks is that they increase fall damage on the legs, so most leg structure really should be replaced with leg armor...

given that legs don't have a front and back, thats anyways the better way. since having more structure also increases ammo explosion chancescompared to armor buffs

Edited by Lily from animove, 14 September 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Telmasa]

Armor quirks don't make sense to me, at all.

More armor = more weight.

Getting more armor that weighs nothing through a magical Power Ranger Super Quirk ™ is wrong.

Structure quirks, at least, can be explained somewhat reasonably - certain design arrangements or careful construction of the 'Mech when it's produced resulting in greater structural integrity - but armor?

Either you use Ferro, other special armors that exist in the BT universe, or you have to give up weight.

If a 'Mech gets an armor quirk, it should be accompanied by a quirk that also makes armor weigh more per ton. (or vice versa, cause why not?)

Or better yet...just ditch the idea of quirks whenever possible and find other means of balance. And fix fall damage calcuation.

Edited by Telmasa, 14 September 2015 - 11:29 AM.

[FupDup]

Telmasa, on 14 September 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

Armor quirks don't make sense to me, at all.

More armor = more weight.

Getting more armor that weighs nothing through a magical Power Ranger Super Quirk ™ is wrong.

Structure quirks, at least, can be explained somewhat reasonably - certain design arrangements or careful construction of the 'Mech when it's produced resulting in greater structural integrity - but armor?

Either you use Ferro, other special armors that exist in the BT universe, or you have to give up weight.

If a 'Mech gets an armor quirk, it should be accompanied by a quirk that also makes armor weigh more per ton. (or vice versa, cause why not?)

Or better yet...just ditch the idea of quirks whenever possible and find other means of balance. And fix fall damage calcuation.

Structure is also more weight, it's just weight that you can't increase or decrease on a micro-level like armor. Structure still requires tonnage, it's just a fixed amount based on your mech size and if you use STD/Endo.

[JayStrider]

Kodyn, on 14 September 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

So most of my concerns were at least partially allayed by the video, thanks Phil for doing that...

Could you link please?

Kodyn, on 14 September 2015 - 08:34 AM, said:

I still think the sensor system could use some work, even if it is something like straight ripping off EVE and giving mechs of varying weight classes different sensor "signatures", ie a Locust would take longer to be locked on to than a Direwolf. I think Phil actually alluded to something like this, so maybe that's part of what's in the works already.

In EVE you couldn't shoot (or use EW or Logi) without targeting. Kind of hard to compare in that sense. If I could just use my mouse and perhaps skillfully aim at a ship without targeting, I probably wouldn't have cared as much about sig radius and things like that in EVE. I'm still trying to learn more... I'm just curious at this point how any of this stuff affects anything but LRMs and Streaks.

[L3mming2]

Telmasa, on 14 September 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

Armor quirks don't make sense to me, at all.

More armor = more weight.

Getting more armor that weighs nothing through a magical Power Ranger Super Quirk ™ is wrong.

Structure quirks, at least, can be explained somewhat reasonably - certain design arrangements or careful construction of the 'Mech when it's produced resulting in greater structural integrity - but armor?

Either you use Ferro, other special armors that exist in the BT universe, or you have to give up weight.

If a 'Mech gets an armor quirk, it should be accompanied by a quirk that also makes armor weigh more per ton. (or vice versa, cause why not?)

Or better yet...just ditch the idea of quirks whenever possible and find other means of balance. And fix fall damage calcuation.

sloped armor?

[SpiralFace]

Even HP itself is a streamlined abstract representation of how armor works in reality.

More armor in reality =/= more protection. It comes down to how the armor is sloped for glancing angled shots, how the armor is constructed to fragment and distribute the impacts of hits across its frame, and how it "disperses" damage across its surface.

Armor quirks and structure quirks I've never seen as adding more physical armor to the mech, but is an abstract representation of how some designs might be better able to absorb, distribute, and disperse damage across the surface of the armor that IS mounted on the frame.

But because you don't track force absorption, distribution, and dispersion throughout a frame, we are left with Hitpoints as an abstract representation of all of those things.

So I don't feel like its the worst thing in the world to basically concede that some structure and armor is just better designed to absorb and disperse damage across its surface, just like you see in real life.

[Kodyn]

JayStrider, on 14 September 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

Could you link please?

[DivineEvil]

SpiralFace, on 15 September 2015 - 05:32 AM, said:

Even HP itself is a streamlined abstract representation of how armor works in reality.

More armor in reality =/= more protection. It comes down to how the armor is sloped for glancing angled shots, how the armor is constructed to fragment and distribute the impacts of hits across its frame, and how it "disperses" damage across its surface.

Armor quirks and structure quirks I've never seen as adding more physical armor to the mech, but is an abstract representation of how some designs might be better able to absorb, distribute, and disperse damage across the surface of the armor that IS mounted on the frame.

But because you don't track force absorption, distribution, and dispersion throughout a frame, we are left with Hitpoints as an abstract representation of all of those things.

So I don't feel like its the worst thing in the world to basically concede that some structure and armor is just better designed to absorb and disperse damage across its surface, just like you see in real life.

Well, in fact, additional armor might just as well represent the actual armor and additional structure reinforcement. What people seem to forget, is that a mech's weight is just that, a weight of the mech's frame. Mech's loadout (note the word, people) is what come on top of that. Atlas weights 100 tons, and his frame can carry 100 tons of equipment and armor on top of it, so the whole thing is actually 200 tons of titanium, aluminum, ceramics, carbon fiber, polymers and wiring.

If a mech has additional armor and/or structure it can just as well mean, that they are included into mech's own weight and cannot be removed being hard-fused into a mech's chassis. When we're speaking about Battletech, there's no much consideration for armor angles and stuff. The whole point behind ablative armor of MWO universe, is that there's no armor, that can withstand a hit, only the armor, that can absorb it. For lasers and Particle Projector Cannons armor angle doesn't make difference, all LRMs, SRMs and Autocannons are using HEAP shells, and Gauss tungsten-alloyed, hypersonic munitions doesn't have much tendency to bounce off anything...

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Thing is the points of armor per ton and the HP of structure should be what ever is necessary for balance and parity concerns.

For example, since most weapons sit at or above 2.5x values (before considering Fast Fire, weapon quirks and modules), then raising armor and structure baselines by an additional 0.5x (overall 2.5x) should be something that is considered.

So looking at armor units per ton, original / current / 2.5x here is how it would look:

Standard
16.00 / 32.00 / 40.00
IS Ferro
17.92 / 35.84 / 44.80
Clan Ferro
19.20 / 38.40 / 48.00




So two specific cases that have added quirks to Armor and Structure values are the Commando and Atlas, I've had time to look at:

Spoiler