20 replies to this topic

[Scurry]

Just a random series of thoughts. As of now, you've got different engine caps across different mechs, This results in different max speeds, even in the same weight class. This affects survivability.

Granted, higher speed means more tonnage expended, but it's still a disadvantage, and slower mechs sometimes have inconvenient extra tonnage. Example is the Vindicator - 2 of the variants have low engine caps, and don't really have the hardpoints to mount more weaponry.

This got me thinking - how do you make up for that difference in survivability? So........what if mechs did not have ceilings on armor? What if you could take as much armor as you have tonnage for? Heretical, I know, but how would this affect the game?

Granted, quirks do something like this. But this takes it further.

[El Bandito]

That will simply obsolete the Standard engine, as people will pick XL engine then load up on armor with the weight saved.

Edited by El Bandito, 19 December 2015 - 06:04 AM.

[DarkMetalBlade]

I've got a better idea: Remove the armor limits for each specific component, but not the ceiling that comes with the particular weight class it's in.

Why put as much armor as you can have the weight for it, when you've got the ability to put most of your armor to the parts where it gets hit the most, & strip the components that hardly get scratched of it?

In other words: PUT ALL THE ARMOR ON THE (CENTER) TORSO!!!!!!

[zagibu]

It would introduce a new element of imbalance. Mechs, which already have lots of free tonnage to play with would get even stronger, while those who are already limited would not profit at all.

[Vickinator]

Look ladies if we want more durable mechs lets just all be allowed to pilot Colossal battlemechs, I choose the Ares.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

There's a better idea that has been floating around these forums for a year or more now: set armor caps based on stock loadouts. IIRC the initial proposal was something like stock+3 tons.

If a variant is low on stock armor and has inflated hardpoints, and another variant is low on hardpoints but has much heavier stock armor, our current system means that the one with lower stock armor is flat-out better. This new system would mean that you could still increase the armor protection of the high hardpoint count variant, but it the one with heavier stock armor will have higher maximums.

This gives those under-performing variants that have fewer guns and lower engine ratings a purpose by making them the tanky variants.

[AEgg]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 19 December 2015 - 08:03 AM, said:

There's a better idea that has been floating around these forums for a year or more now: set armor caps based on stock loadouts. IIRC the initial proposal was something like stock+3 tons.

If a variant is low on stock armor and has inflated hardpoints, and another variant is low on hardpoints but has much heavier stock armor, our current system means that the one with lower stock armor is flat-out better. This new system would mean that you could still increase the armor protection of the high hardpoint count variant, but it the one with heavier stock armor will have higher maximums.

This gives those under-performing variants that have fewer guns and lower engine ratings a purpose by making them the tanky variants.

Definitely like the idea, but it would have to scale with mech tonnage (3 tons of armor is a lot more on a locust than on an atlas).

Seems somewhat unlikely though, as PGI is veeery hesitant to make changes that invalidate current builds.

[Nighthog]

why now have ferro fibrous armor give you a higher limit just than having your armor weigh less at same limit. so for same tonnage you get a higher amount at max. Would give this option a little more uses.

[Steinar Bergstol]

AEgg, on 19 December 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

Definitely like the idea, but it would have to scale with mech tonnage (3 tons of armor is a lot more on a locust than on an atlas).

Seems somewhat unlikely though, as PGI is veeery hesitant to make changes that invalidate current builds.

It's more that they're hesitant to make changes that make _stock_ builds impossible. This idea does not do that. The stock loadouts remain unaffected. It's only when you start modifying your mech this idea comes into play. For example, the Thunderbolt has always been known as a tough ******* of a mech with more armor than mechs quite a bit heavier than it, and significantly more armor than other mechs its weight. This would mean the Thunderbolt would retain that characteristic, which has always been a defining feature of the design since it was created, relative to those same mechs. It would be one more thing to give mechs a personality of their own rather than all mechs of the same weight having the same armor limit.A Thunderbolt would always be able to pack on more armor than, say, a MAD-3R for example, because armor is what a Thunderbolt does, even if it's 10 tons lighter than the Marauder.

[SOL Ranger]

El Bandito, on 19 December 2015 - 06:04 AM, said:

That will simply obsolete the Standard engine, as people will pick XL engine then load up on armor with the weight saved.

Then you rebalance what is needed, what you're saying is not an argument against the suggestion, merely an indication there needs to be further changes to allow it to be fully applicable, as with all changes.

STD engines and XL engines could easily be made more different and avoid the whole issue you bring up.

This is why everyone suggesting anything need to include a disclaimer where they specifically point out that it is a mechanic conceptual suggestion, not a perfect solution to be immediately implemented, as some people will always cherry pick something they think doesn't work and dismiss the whole idea outright as if it was then justified to do so.

Argue the concept suggested, don't look for quite trivial excuses to dismiss the idea, in a balanced game freely applying weight of defensive properties instead of offensive properties is certainly a reasonable concept to allow, and very much desirable for more interesting gameplay.

[RoboPatton]

As long is it also came with a graphical change...

I want to see layers of armor making all the bots' look obese, and for them to waddle when they walk.

[DAYLEET]

Vickinator, on 19 December 2015 - 07:27 AM, said:

Look ladies if we want more durable mechs lets just all be allowed to pilot Colossal battlemechs, I choose the Ares.

Why can't we just regen armor after a few seconds of hiding... *flee*

[El Bandito]

SOL Ranger, on 19 December 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Argue the concept suggested, don't look for quite trivial excuses to dismiss the idea, in a balanced game freely applying weight of defensive properties instead of offensive properties is certainly a reasonable concept to allow, and very much desirable for more interesting gameplay.

On other games, maybe, but this is Battletech. All mechs must have set maximum amount of armor--19 tons of armor in the case of 100 ton mechs, for example. It is a fundamental BT concept, just like an engine requiring 10 heatsinks to function. Instead of bringing yet another balancing issue, why not make it so that certain fringe mechs OP mentioned get buffs?

Edited by El Bandito, 19 December 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[Vickinator]

El Bandito, on 19 December 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

On other games, maybe, but this is Battletech. All mechs must have set maximum amount of armor--19 tons of armor in the case of 100 ton mechs, for example. It is a fundamental BT concept, just like an engine requiring 10 heatsinks to function. Instead of bringing yet another balancing issue, why not make it so that certain fringe mechs OP mentioned get buffs?

Woah that is a far too smart reason why we shouldn't allow an atlas to equip 90 tons of armor on the chassis

[MechaBattler]

Or give Ferro the ability to increase that cap.

[SOL Ranger]

El Bandito, on 19 December 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

On other games, maybe, but this is Battletech. All mechs must have set maximum amount of armor--19 tons of armor in the case of 100 ton mechs, for example. It is a fundamental BT concept, just like an engine requiring 10 heatsinks to function. Instead of bringing yet another balancing issue, why not make it so that certain fringe mechs OP mentioned get buffs?

I'll concede that BT lore and rules escape my knowledge and you do indeed have a point in claiming lore, but notably I've seen those kinds of rules altered in other ways in MWO so I don't think they're as rigid and written in stone as they may seem when it comes to fixing game balance.

I would argue that underpowered fringe mechs that require buffs as stated are those with lacking hardpoints, they could then allocate armour instead of weapons and instantly become overall balanced at least in some kind of loadout, then they could be adjusted with minor additional buffs for their inherent inflexibility, something that is much easier to achieve.

A system like this would also reduce the current silly low TTK issue by giving players the option to reduce armaments for armour, a compromise solution of the best kind.

I'll leave the question of whether this is applicable for MWO or not for the developers, I think sometimes one should bend some rules to get a more flexible system in place.

[Xhaleon]

I think that the role of Ferro Fibrous was a bit underwhelming upon its conception. It is purely a weaker version of Endo Steel from a numbers perspective, merely an alternative tool for the original designers at FASA when they were trying to create a mech that needed only a little bit of extra weight (and perhaps was intentionally made to have sub-par armor or a lack of other equipment). In the basic skirmish game, the cost of repair was not a factor so a mech having FF instead of ES had no bearing on it at all.

I agree that armor limits based on the original mech's values, with hand-tweaked values for every mech instead of a flat multiplier so that we don't end up with mechs that are still walking paper mache even when customized to the max coughjagermechcough. With respect to this proposal, I also think it is a good idea to have FF armor increase the total armor that can be fit onto a mech that exceeds the more limited maximums, this gives it a brand new niche that it should have had. Do you choose ES because it allows you to squeeze in another heatsink, or do you pick FF for greater armor than would normally be possible?

Whether it is wise to then allow it to exceed a mech's absolute natural armor limits based on tonnage, I don't know.

Edited by Xhaleon, 19 December 2015 - 10:43 AM.

[Quaamik]

Simple fix. Allow a 1 slot "additional armor" and "additional structure" componant. Have them weigh 1 ton each and give 1 ton of extra armor or structure to the componant they are installed in. Center and side torsos would allow you to split it between the front and back as you saw fit.

That way you have to have both the weight AND the space available. It would help in balancing, as the extra space that a XL engine take up might prevent you from mounting it.

Edited by Quaamik, 19 December 2015 - 12:14 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

AEgg, on 19 December 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

Definitely like the idea, but it would have to scale with mech tonnage (3 tons of armor is a lot more on a locust than on an atlas).

Seems somewhat unlikely though, as PGI is veeery hesitant to make changes that invalidate current builds.

I believe it would work better on a distributed point/tonnage system on a per mech basis (each tonnage rating) to make sure that no mechs in any class suffer from a horrendously low stock armor. If we remember correctly, not many mechs have full armor and there's even some that have a ridiculously low stock amount that were meant as fire support and kept away from the center of a fight.

[Cyborne Elemental]

I wish FerroFibrous would increase max armor cap by like 8-10% or something.

Would be a great tactical alternative, if you could make a worthwhile choice between FF and Endo other than just weight.

Right now, for anything heavier than lights, using Ferro is mostly pointless compared to Endo-Steel, because it only offers weight savings, where Endo offers more weight savings, there is no benefit to choosing FF over Endo.

It does become a balance issue with clans somewhat, because all the top tier clan mechs have both Endo & Ferro and doesn't hurt crit slots like it does for IS mechs.
Clans can still max build for firepower and cooling with almost no issue keeping cool with enough DHS since they retain more than enough crit slots with both upgrades.