42 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

The Atlas K has +27 armour to each component, and 37 structure.

Although something seems to be bugged. I have 0 rear armour equipped, so it should be just +27 armour, right?
Well...the rear torso survived 8 cMPLs, or 64 damage, which just so happens to be 27+37.
I guess it's possible the Structure Quirks are actually armour?





OR...actually, that might explain something. When the rear armour on the Atlas dies, it explodes.
Test it in the Training Grounds yourself, Crimson Straights is good for it, Atlas just ahead, around the corner.

So, theoretically, if the Structure is not implemented correctly, and it actually a SECOND rear torso, hypothetically speaking. Explains the explosion and Component Destruction bonus.





In other news, the Atlas K has over 1500 HP.

Yep...Whale has ~921, as an unquirked 100 tonner.
Bonuses add up past that. 11*27 + 8*37 =593
+921 comes to 1514


More related pictures, 2 sets:

Spoiler

Kinda adds up.


And, fully tested, the Atlas now has 11 components, on the PTS. I guess I need to submit this feedback over there now...I started this off as hilarious, turns out it is NOT a feature.





Full picture album, but I think I posted most of them:
http://imgur.com/a/M3T7T


Head likely has 97HP, and I just got a few Crits along the way (64+33=97, dealt 95 damage with MLs upon death).



I just found this hilarious...but I think I fully support the Atlas having significant Armour quirks. The K is especially deserving of it, having nothing in terms of Hardpoint inflation.

[Deathlike]

Well...

Based on the pics, I'd read it as back armor.

However, if PGI decided to have a "universal buffer" for both front and back torsos in their new "armor" quirks, it would be something.

Most of the previous buffs to side torsos are simply front loaded... unless they are structure based.

This method of armoring is much stronger since it is in the form of armor, and I think it's not universal... but split between doubled for front and back (so, doing 0 back armor can actually be a thing). It is "doubled" in the sense that you have that value translating into additional armor for both front and back (you're getting double the value).

This is very dangerous in terms of mech building and from a balance perspective.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 November 2015 - 08:27 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

So this also means all the other mechs with full body quirks have this effect. Like my Centurion which just absorbs rear damage for quite awhile now.

Edit: also explains how that Jenner took 30 rear damage from hexa AC5s and walked off with only Yellow internals.

Edited by Dakota1000, 05 November 2015 - 08:29 PM.

[Deathlike]

Dakota1000, on 05 November 2015 - 08:27 PM, said:

So this also means all the other mechs with full body quirks have this effect. Like my Centurion which just absorbs rear damage for quite awhile now.

No.. this is different since the PTS is the only one with said quirks AFAIK.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:25 PM, said:

Well...

Based on the pics, I'd read it as back armor.

However, if PGI decided to have a "universal buffer" for both front and back torsos in their new "armor" quirks, it would be something.

Most of the previous buffs to side torsos are simply front loaded... unless they are structure based.

This method of armoring is much stronger since it is in the form of armor, and I think it's not universal... but split between doubled for front and back (so, doing 0 back armor can actually be a thing). It is "doubled" in the sense that you have that value translating into additional armor for both front and back (you're getting double the value).

This is very dangerous in terms of mech building and from a balance perspective.

It's not just back armour, as there's an additional 3 Components on the Mech (each Rear Torso has 37 Structure, but doesn't come into contact with the PaperDoll Structure). My AC20 got 2 Crits and destroyed it in 3 AC20 hits alone (60<64), so it's definitely Structure, but not listed on the paperdoll.


I'm fine with keeping it...but 64 free rear armour is pretty excessive. The Front torso doesn't have that issue, as that's the Structure listed on the Paperdoll (and the rear Structure would never be touched).

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

No.. this is different since the PTS is the only one with said quirks AFAIK.

Well, the Cent has the same Quirk (to a much lesser degree), I'll go test it via Testing Grounds.
You don't get the Component Destruction, but you do get the explosion.


Yep, same effect. Explosion before the rear torso is dead.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 November 2015 - 08:30 PM, said:

It's not just back armour, as there's an additional 3 Components on the Mech (each Rear Torso has 37 Structure, but doesn't come into contact with the PaperDoll Structure). My AC20 got 2 Crits and destroyed it in 3 AC20 hits alone (60<64), so it's definitely Structure, but not listed on the paperdoll.


I'm fine with keeping it...but 64 free rear armour is pretty excessive. The Front torso doesn't have that issue, as that's the Structure listed on the Paperdoll (and the rear Structure would never be touched).

I was kinda reading it wrong.

It's kinda akin to the MW4 days... with extra armor for like the missile racks on the Timberwolf and such.

It could work in MWO... like having a special armor set for the Hunchback's hunch, and leaving the rest as the Right Torso. However it isn't canon.. but it can be a great consideration for balance.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

PGI has solved the TTK issue it seems.

[GreyNovember]

I am totally okay with this.

[Khobai]

atlas and direwolf are supposed to have the same amount of armor

dunno if I like the idea of the atlas having 50% more hitpoints. that seems like a reiteration of the same excessive lopsided quirks we didnt like before... except with armor instead of weapon quirks.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:28 PM, said:

No.. this is different since the PTS is the only one with said quirks AFAIK.

I meant on the PTS server.

This also means the Cicada 3C has the highest bonuses of any medium mech. Prepare thine brawler Cicadas.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 05 November 2015 - 08:40 PM, said:

dunno if I like the idea of the atlas having 50% more hitpoints. that seems like a reiteration of the same excessive lopsided quirks we didnt like before... except with armor instead of weapon quirks.

BUT IT'S TOTALLY OKAY BECAUSE WEAPONS ARE EVIL AND CAN NEVER BE ALTERED IN PERFORMANCE BUT ARMOR IS RIGHTEOUS AND TOTALLY FAIR-GAME.

[Deathlike]

Another way to look at it..

It would be "best used" to improve TTK for Lights and Mediums... but could be too powerful for Assaults.

If said bonuses were used on various Lights, you would easily improve their TTK as it doesn't take much to kill them (side torso for most.. or legs because it's the thing to do) and it's difficult wanting to allocate back armor for these things (you can spare at least 2, but can't do more than 4) since backcoring is an insta-death event.

Putting this on an Atlas would make it very difficult to back core them (*insert 3 second Jenner jokes here*) although some people don't practice protecting their arses in the first place. Buffing that would only reinforce the idea of "frontloaded armor"... of which many of the upper tier players preach in the first place (you need less back armor as you get better).

These things need serious consideration and thought...

[Khobai]

Quote

Putting this on an Atlas would make it very difficult to back core them

it should be difficult to back core them

especially since they dont get the rear-firing weapons theyre supposed to have

[GreyNovember]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:45 PM, said:

Another way to look at it..

It would be "best used" to improve TTK for Lights and Mediums... but could be too powerful for Assaults.

If said bonuses were used on various Lights, you would easily improve their TTK as it doesn't take much to kill them (side torso for most.. or legs because it's the thing to do) and it's difficult wanting to allocate back armor for these things (you can spare at least 2, but can't do more than 4) since backcoring is an insta-death event.

Putting this on an Atlas would make it very difficult to back core them (*insert 3 second Jenner jokes here*) although some people don't practice protecting their arses in the first place. Buffing that would only reinforce the idea of "frontloaded armor"... of which many of the upper tier players preach in the first place (you need less back armor as you get better).

These things need serious consideration and thought...

On the flip side an Atlas' weapons at greater than 300m are usually two LL/ERLL.

If it gets the ability to advance through lance fire, bring it's AC20 to bear, but be helpless against an ERLL Raven, that sounds okay.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 05 November 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

it should be difficult to back core them

especially since they dont get the rear-firing weapons theyre supposed to have

Ignoring lore for a moment.. most good pilots won't allow you to glance at their back (assuming that they aren't occupied). Bad pilots get backraged pretty easily as they don't even turn to see while their paperdoll is telling them their back is being violated.

GreyNovember, on 05 November 2015 - 08:49 PM, said:

On the flip side an Atlas' weapons at greater than 300m are usually two LL/ERLL.

If it gets the ability to advance through lance fire, bring it's AC20 to bear, but be helpless against an ERLL Raven, that sounds okay.

I'm mostly discussing a more global issue with respect to the PTS changes.

Atlases do need to be tankier on the whole.. as the Dire Whale wrecks things much faster than an Atlas that generally brawls.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 November 2015 - 08:51 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

I'm mostly discussing a more global issue with respect to the PTS changes.

Atlases do need to be tankier on the whole.. as the Dire Whale wrecks things much faster than an Atlas that generally brawls.

The reality is, they only gain 27 armour on the front of either ST. So, they will still lose the 18HP AC20 in very little time.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 November 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

The reality is, they only gain 27 armour on the front of either ST. So, they will still lose the 18HP AC20 in very little time.

That's why I hate internal structure changes. It simply reduces your weapon uptime (more crit chances) as armor holds out that much better.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 November 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

That's why I hate internal structure changes. It simply reduces your weapon uptime (more crit chances) as armor holds out that much better.

Easy fix for that: "health='50'

Bam, AC20 can take some hits.



I think I also won't link this into the PTS feedback...let's keep this "Feature". Let's see if PGI actually visits the most traffic'd part of the Forum and discover it themselves.

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 November 2015 - 09:08 PM.

[adamts01]

This is fine as along as they do a better job of matching weight classes. Couple weeks ago I dropped with my brother. Enemy had 3 assaults, 3 heavies, 2 mediums and a light. We had 3 heavies, 2 mediums and 4 lights. I've never seen a game that lopsided. This was before the weight restrictions. Way to go PGI.