Interesting idea, and I'm not entirely against it, but I think it's a bridge too far, considering the potential benefits.
It's not easy to intuit how your weapons will affect any given mech on the field.
It would take a lot more experience to know why you're not doing as much damage to a certain mech. This would hurt new players the most. They would have a much tougher time understanding the best way to kill a particular mech.
You would have to redo the entire balance of quirks, because they would impact this heavily.
The benefit is a bit more to think about in design and employment of your mech (a plus in my book) and more role warfare potential (game plays more like combined arms).
2
Divide Damage Into Ap And He
Started by brroleg, Jan 31 2016 03:11 PM
58 replies to this topic
#42
-
-
- The Boombox
- 4,469 posts
Member
- LocationCleveland, Ohio
Posted 13 February 2016 - 03:29 PM
brroleg, on 31 January 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:
Im applying game-play logic. Dividing damage into AP and HE will make gameplay more deep and interesting.
And in doing so exponentially increase the variables PGI has to balance.
Sorry, no thanks. They havent come to a solution to the LRM/Direct-Indirect fire/RADAR/lock problem, a viable crit system, let alone roles for the different weight classes.
After PGI gets a handle on those, maybe fancy types of armor can come into play.
#43
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 2,234 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2016 - 03:34 PM
That is neat and it would probably work, but I don't think it's a feature anyone is really asking for..
#44
-
-
- Overlord
- 3,972 posts
Member
- LocationSolaris VII
Posted 13 February 2016 - 03:56 PM
627, on 31 January 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:
No. This is at the end a BattleTech game and there's no such thing as you describe.
This is not a generic RPG shooter with different kind ofmagic damage.
This is not a generic RPG shooter with different kind of
eeeeeh there kinda is.
In BT we do have Armour piercing ammo and Tandem and such but mostly all of those are 3080's+.
Also brroleg @post #20. apparently WT is working on a similar system like you say in terms of armour in an area slowly being removed to enemy fire depending on the condition and quality of the material. So your comment that currently no 'mmo' game on the market has it isn't the strongest claim - at least for long.
#45
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 245 posts
Member
- LocationUkraine
Posted 13 February 2016 - 03:56 PM
Moldur, on 13 February 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:
That is neat and it would probably work, but I don't think it's a feature anyone is really asking for..
There is things people dont know that they need it until you give it to them.
#46
-
- Bad Company
- 5 posts
Rookie
Posted 13 February 2016 - 06:34 PM
look Op. NO.
you have absolutely no support from anyone on this. It's not a good idea in any shape or form, not just from a TT view, but in the style of game. What you're asking is a complete rework on core mechanics that have existed in MW games since the very first, a style that frankly works.
It bares no resemblance to anything Mechwarrior related in any shape and form and frankly definitely does not add to "gameplay", the extra level of complexity you ask for detracts from the gameplay, not adds.
And your continued bumping to get attention isn't doing your idea any favours and certainly isn't legitimizing your idea... just some food for thought on that.
you have absolutely no support from anyone on this. It's not a good idea in any shape or form, not just from a TT view, but in the style of game. What you're asking is a complete rework on core mechanics that have existed in MW games since the very first, a style that frankly works.
It bares no resemblance to anything Mechwarrior related in any shape and form and frankly definitely does not add to "gameplay", the extra level of complexity you ask for detracts from the gameplay, not adds.
And your continued bumping to get attention isn't doing your idea any favours and certainly isn't legitimizing your idea... just some food for thought on that.
#48
-
-
- 2,831 posts
Member
Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:36 PM
Nope, you're thinking of Armor like a damage reduction mechanic.
Battletech uses Armor as a solid object, something with its own integrity that degrades by being hit (shot) by weaponry or collisions/force from something. Hitting Armor with something such as an AC5 degrades the integrity of that Armor by 5 points of its total value. In the show or books armor is distributed across the mech but means there are still stronger and weaker locations on a chassis. In video games or the table top, armor is distributing across 'sections' of a mech evenly and any hits to that section reduce an overall pool of points from that section.
What you're proposing would negate a core mechanic of the Battletech franchise and make the game far more ridiculous than it is now. Besides that, even other mecha games such as HAWKEN do not use this sort of 'armor' mechanic because it means that the smallest damage weapons would be practically useless in comparison to large damage weapons. With the advantage of smaller weapons being quicker firing and fewer penalties at the cost of less damage, while the higher weapons generally are slower and have penalties such as slower projectile travel time, low ammo counts, high heats, etc or whatever. The 'armor' mechanic NEGATES damage done, meaning it impacts those low damage weapons SIGNIFICANTLY more than higher damage weapons and is only ideal for games with technology/upgrades that gradually increase (Single Player, my best example is the new XCOM series which #2 just came out) or where players are divided based on a technology tier (examples being World of Tanks or a space ship shooter called Star Conflict which is like WoT in space), the problem with that being MWO doesn't have the playerbase to split its players based both on skill rating (PSR) and a technology tree, not to mention Battletech has no technology/upgrade superiority system like that and it would be stupid if it did.
Battletech uses Armor as a solid object, something with its own integrity that degrades by being hit (shot) by weaponry or collisions/force from something. Hitting Armor with something such as an AC5 degrades the integrity of that Armor by 5 points of its total value. In the show or books armor is distributed across the mech but means there are still stronger and weaker locations on a chassis. In video games or the table top, armor is distributing across 'sections' of a mech evenly and any hits to that section reduce an overall pool of points from that section.
What you're proposing would negate a core mechanic of the Battletech franchise and make the game far more ridiculous than it is now. Besides that, even other mecha games such as HAWKEN do not use this sort of 'armor' mechanic because it means that the smallest damage weapons would be practically useless in comparison to large damage weapons. With the advantage of smaller weapons being quicker firing and fewer penalties at the cost of less damage, while the higher weapons generally are slower and have penalties such as slower projectile travel time, low ammo counts, high heats, etc or whatever. The 'armor' mechanic NEGATES damage done, meaning it impacts those low damage weapons SIGNIFICANTLY more than higher damage weapons and is only ideal for games with technology/upgrades that gradually increase (Single Player, my best example is the new XCOM series which #2 just came out) or where players are divided based on a technology tier (examples being World of Tanks or a space ship shooter called Star Conflict which is like WoT in space), the problem with that being MWO doesn't have the playerbase to split its players based both on skill rating (PSR) and a technology tree, not to mention Battletech has no technology/upgrade superiority system like that and it would be stupid if it did.
#49
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 3,735 posts
Member
Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:33 AM
Star Conflict is made by Gaijin Entertainment, who makes War Thunder. Its more like War Thunder in space.
Mech game that distinguishes AP/HE type is Armored Core. The in game terms for it is KE for Kinetic Energy, which is described for rifles with armor piercing rounds; CE for Chemical Energy, which describes HE shells or missile impacts, and TE for thermal energy, which describes for energy weapons. Different parts have various resistance for the forms so you can customize the resistance qualities of your mech against these weapons. You can heavily optimize your mech against kinetic damage but if you face an enemy with energy weapons, you can find yourself extremely vulnerable. When it comes to meeting the PvE boss missions, knowing what the boss is resistant to, and what energy the boss uses for its weapons, is critical for tailoring your mech to beat that mission. Which can be very hard, since Armored Core was the prototype for Dark Souls.
World of Warships uses an AP/HE system, which by the way, is true to life since our warships use Armor Piercing and High Explosive shells for specific situations. For armor piercing, this is subjected to deflection and penetration mechanics, so the angle of entry, armor inclination and slope is important, just like in tank warfare. If you have a successful penetration, and it hits the citadel, you get enormous damage, and a detonation can destroy a whole ship in a single salvo. HE however, ignores armor and just bites at the HP pool. HE also damages components and modules and sets fire, and when a fire gets going, it gradually eats away at the HP pool.
War Thunder Ground Forces uses a rather sophisticated system of ammunition choice that is based on real life weaponry. It has no HP point system but rather, kills are done by penetrating armor to destroy crew and critical components inside a tank.
HE --- High Explosive. Won't kill a tank unless its a big round aimed at the sides. HE however, can bust cannons and disable tracks, and a small tank using HE can bust the cannon of a superior tank and run away.
AP --- Armor Piercing. Solid Round. Subject to angle, entry, energy and penetration mechanics, the solid AP round relies on fragmentation (spalling) effects inside the tank to cause damage. The effect on this is that achieving one shot kills can be quite random and depending on RNG.
APC or APBC--- Armor Piercing Cap or Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap. Also a solid round but capping enables a larger angle envelope of entry. Generally more reliable for penetration.
APHE --- Armor Piercing High Explosive. Works like any AP round but when penetrates, explodes like a grenade inside a tank. APHE is generally reliable for one shot knockouts of a tank.
APHEBC --- APHE with Ballistic Cap. Improves penetration further with capping. This is generally the most favored tank shell in War Thunder.
APCR --- Armor Piercing Composite Rigid. In WoT this is the "Premium" or Gold Ammo. This offers superior penetration of all rounds. In real life and in War Thunder, APCR rounds are solid rounds that are sub caliber. In short, they attain their high velocities at the expense of shell mass. They derive their damage from spalling or fragmentation effects, however in War Thunder due to the small mass, these effects maybe less than AP rounds. HVAP is the term used for APCR by US tanks. Due to the use of Tungsten, these rounds are more expensive and only few are deployed for each tank if they are deployed at all. This is one of the biggest differences in War Thunder vs. World of Tanks --- APCR is not a silver bullet in WTGF, you get less potential damage and more RNG for one shot death effects, nor requires you to buy an exorbitant or real money cost for it.
HEAT --- High Explosive Antitank Warhead. These shells when they contact tank armor explode to blast a solid projectile into it. Hand held antitank weapons like bazookas and panzerfaust are HEAT weapons, and so are antitank missiles. HEAT has slower shell velocities, but are range independent for penetration. They can penetrate the same thickness of armor even when shot far away. (AC weapons in Mechwarrior tends to have HEAT characteristics).
APFSDS --- Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. These attain APCR velocities but have the full weight of AP rounds. In the game and as in WW2 history, they are unique to the British, who happens to lack proper APHE and APHEBC rounds.
In general, you want to use APHE and APHEBC rounds, the latter the most favorable. However they don't penetrate as well as solid rounds, and are subject to fusing sensitivities. Solid shots (AP, APC, HEAT, APCR, APFSDS) require proper target placement of the shell at the tank to attain a one shot knockout, otherwise the enemy tank will survive and one shot you instead.
War Thunder also uses a metal fatigue system, armor that is deflecting rounds, gradually weaken, and the next time, it will let the round through. If a tank can't be penetrated by APHEBC round, switch to AP or APCR. If the tank fails to die from repeated AP or APCR rounds, switch to APHE or APHEBC.
----------------------------
Generally AP/HE systems don't fit Mechwarrior, as MW has its own signature damage mechanics. Each game franchise or IP has core damage mechanics that are a unique signature to that IP. I do remember the use of Thermal and Reactive armor in the later time line, which increases resistance against one type of weapon at the weakening of the other. Thermal against energy weapons, Reactive against ballistic and missile weapons.
In game, MW's ballistics are range neutral in damage and penetration, which means they act more like HEAT rounds. HEAT rounds needed to be defeated reactive armor, which is a consumable. Reactive armor explodes on contact, preventing the HEAT round from exploding against solid armor. But reactive armor is expended, which means the side that has expended armor becomes vulnerable to the next incoming round, unless you turn the side around to expose another side with fresh reactive armor. So the armor in Mechwarrior isn't just ablative (burn away) in nature, its also reactive against HEAT shells.
Gauss though, are clearly solid AP shots. Destruction of the Gauss ammo rack results in no detonation because the shots are solid and contain no explosive. Reactive armor also works against solid shots as well, and depleted with impact.
Mech game that distinguishes AP/HE type is Armored Core. The in game terms for it is KE for Kinetic Energy, which is described for rifles with armor piercing rounds; CE for Chemical Energy, which describes HE shells or missile impacts, and TE for thermal energy, which describes for energy weapons. Different parts have various resistance for the forms so you can customize the resistance qualities of your mech against these weapons. You can heavily optimize your mech against kinetic damage but if you face an enemy with energy weapons, you can find yourself extremely vulnerable. When it comes to meeting the PvE boss missions, knowing what the boss is resistant to, and what energy the boss uses for its weapons, is critical for tailoring your mech to beat that mission. Which can be very hard, since Armored Core was the prototype for Dark Souls.
World of Warships uses an AP/HE system, which by the way, is true to life since our warships use Armor Piercing and High Explosive shells for specific situations. For armor piercing, this is subjected to deflection and penetration mechanics, so the angle of entry, armor inclination and slope is important, just like in tank warfare. If you have a successful penetration, and it hits the citadel, you get enormous damage, and a detonation can destroy a whole ship in a single salvo. HE however, ignores armor and just bites at the HP pool. HE also damages components and modules and sets fire, and when a fire gets going, it gradually eats away at the HP pool.
War Thunder Ground Forces uses a rather sophisticated system of ammunition choice that is based on real life weaponry. It has no HP point system but rather, kills are done by penetrating armor to destroy crew and critical components inside a tank.
HE --- High Explosive. Won't kill a tank unless its a big round aimed at the sides. HE however, can bust cannons and disable tracks, and a small tank using HE can bust the cannon of a superior tank and run away.
AP --- Armor Piercing. Solid Round. Subject to angle, entry, energy and penetration mechanics, the solid AP round relies on fragmentation (spalling) effects inside the tank to cause damage. The effect on this is that achieving one shot kills can be quite random and depending on RNG.
APC or APBC--- Armor Piercing Cap or Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap. Also a solid round but capping enables a larger angle envelope of entry. Generally more reliable for penetration.
APHE --- Armor Piercing High Explosive. Works like any AP round but when penetrates, explodes like a grenade inside a tank. APHE is generally reliable for one shot knockouts of a tank.
APHEBC --- APHE with Ballistic Cap. Improves penetration further with capping. This is generally the most favored tank shell in War Thunder.
APCR --- Armor Piercing Composite Rigid. In WoT this is the "Premium" or Gold Ammo. This offers superior penetration of all rounds. In real life and in War Thunder, APCR rounds are solid rounds that are sub caliber. In short, they attain their high velocities at the expense of shell mass. They derive their damage from spalling or fragmentation effects, however in War Thunder due to the small mass, these effects maybe less than AP rounds. HVAP is the term used for APCR by US tanks. Due to the use of Tungsten, these rounds are more expensive and only few are deployed for each tank if they are deployed at all. This is one of the biggest differences in War Thunder vs. World of Tanks --- APCR is not a silver bullet in WTGF, you get less potential damage and more RNG for one shot death effects, nor requires you to buy an exorbitant or real money cost for it.
HEAT --- High Explosive Antitank Warhead. These shells when they contact tank armor explode to blast a solid projectile into it. Hand held antitank weapons like bazookas and panzerfaust are HEAT weapons, and so are antitank missiles. HEAT has slower shell velocities, but are range independent for penetration. They can penetrate the same thickness of armor even when shot far away. (AC weapons in Mechwarrior tends to have HEAT characteristics).
APFSDS --- Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot. These attain APCR velocities but have the full weight of AP rounds. In the game and as in WW2 history, they are unique to the British, who happens to lack proper APHE and APHEBC rounds.
In general, you want to use APHE and APHEBC rounds, the latter the most favorable. However they don't penetrate as well as solid rounds, and are subject to fusing sensitivities. Solid shots (AP, APC, HEAT, APCR, APFSDS) require proper target placement of the shell at the tank to attain a one shot knockout, otherwise the enemy tank will survive and one shot you instead.
War Thunder also uses a metal fatigue system, armor that is deflecting rounds, gradually weaken, and the next time, it will let the round through. If a tank can't be penetrated by APHEBC round, switch to AP or APCR. If the tank fails to die from repeated AP or APCR rounds, switch to APHE or APHEBC.
----------------------------
Generally AP/HE systems don't fit Mechwarrior, as MW has its own signature damage mechanics. Each game franchise or IP has core damage mechanics that are a unique signature to that IP. I do remember the use of Thermal and Reactive armor in the later time line, which increases resistance against one type of weapon at the weakening of the other. Thermal against energy weapons, Reactive against ballistic and missile weapons.
In game, MW's ballistics are range neutral in damage and penetration, which means they act more like HEAT rounds. HEAT rounds needed to be defeated reactive armor, which is a consumable. Reactive armor explodes on contact, preventing the HEAT round from exploding against solid armor. But reactive armor is expended, which means the side that has expended armor becomes vulnerable to the next incoming round, unless you turn the side around to expose another side with fresh reactive armor. So the armor in Mechwarrior isn't just ablative (burn away) in nature, its also reactive against HEAT shells.
Gauss though, are clearly solid AP shots. Destruction of the Gauss ammo rack results in no detonation because the shots are solid and contain no explosive. Reactive armor also works against solid shots as well, and depleted with impact.
Edited by Anjian, 14 February 2016 - 03:49 AM.
#50
-
-
- The Ironclad
- 1,460 posts
Member
- LocationOn the other side of the rock now.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 07:01 PM
We have this in BT. It's called Reflective Armor, Reactive Armor, and Hardened Armor.
Reflective reduces Energy Damage, but increases Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage.
Reactive reduces Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage, but increases Energy Damage.
Hardened armor provides two point of armor per armor "piece", but is heavier and bulkier. Hardened armor is also resistant to the Actual BT AP Weapons, Armor-Piercing Autocannons, and Tandem-Charge Warheads.
The system you are talking about, while interesting, is overly complex and does not really provide anything new to the game, that wouldn't naturally happen if the Crit system was redesigned to closer match TT, and if Pinpoint Convergence weren't a (the?) thing.
Additionally, most people would just boat either an AP Loadout to Punch through Armor and wreck internals, or they would boat an HE loadout to burn everything down.
Reflective reduces Energy Damage, but increases Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage.
Reactive reduces Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage, but increases Energy Damage.
Hardened armor provides two point of armor per armor "piece", but is heavier and bulkier. Hardened armor is also resistant to the Actual BT AP Weapons, Armor-Piercing Autocannons, and Tandem-Charge Warheads.
The system you are talking about, while interesting, is overly complex and does not really provide anything new to the game, that wouldn't naturally happen if the Crit system was redesigned to closer match TT, and if Pinpoint Convergence weren't a (the?) thing.
Additionally, most people would just boat either an AP Loadout to Punch through Armor and wreck internals, or they would boat an HE loadout to burn everything down.
#51
-
-
- Shredder
- 4,138 posts
Member
- LocationAustralia
Posted 14 February 2016 - 07:10 PM
Lore is always going to hold back this game, because the majority of the lore was produced in the 80's by people who had very little clue what a realistic approach was, they made stuff up...
And today we must deal with poor mechanics because the purists wont change..
How on earth is that overly complex lol...
Instead when you build a mech add those three armor types to the upgrade section similar to ferrous is and give each armor a buff to each weapon set its designed to effect... its not rocket science..
And today we must deal with poor mechanics because the purists wont change..
Thunder Child, on 14 February 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:
We have this in BT. It's called Reflective Armor, Reactive Armor, and Hardened Armor.
Reflective reduces Energy Damage, but increases Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage.
Reactive reduces Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage, but increases Energy Damage.
Hardened armor provides two point of armor per armor "piece", but is heavier and bulkier. Hardened armor is also resistant to the Actual BT AP Weapons, Armor-Piercing Autocannons, and Tandem-Charge Warheads.
The system you are talking about, while interesting, is overly complex and does not really provide anything new to the game, that wouldn't naturally happen if the Crit system was redesigned to closer match TT, and if Pinpoint Convergence weren't a (the?) thing.
Additionally, most people would just boat either an AP Loadout to Punch through Armor and wreck internals, or they would boat an HE loadout to burn everything down.
Reflective reduces Energy Damage, but increases Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage.
Reactive reduces Ballistic (and Missile?) Damage, but increases Energy Damage.
Hardened armor provides two point of armor per armor "piece", but is heavier and bulkier. Hardened armor is also resistant to the Actual BT AP Weapons, Armor-Piercing Autocannons, and Tandem-Charge Warheads.
The system you are talking about, while interesting, is overly complex and does not really provide anything new to the game, that wouldn't naturally happen if the Crit system was redesigned to closer match TT, and if Pinpoint Convergence weren't a (the?) thing.
Additionally, most people would just boat either an AP Loadout to Punch through Armor and wreck internals, or they would boat an HE loadout to burn everything down.
How on earth is that overly complex lol...
Instead when you build a mech add those three armor types to the upgrade section similar to ferrous is and give each armor a buff to each weapon set its designed to effect... its not rocket science..
Edited by Samial, 14 February 2016 - 07:13 PM.
#52
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 3,735 posts
Member
Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:07 PM
I recall now, reactive and reflective armor is used in Mechwarrior 4. I don't recall them getting to hardened armor or even stealth armor.
For AP/HE to work, angular and deflection mechanics must be involved like with real life tank armor. You increase the slope of the armor, you increase the effective thickness. Shells entering at an angle reduces their overall penetration effectiveness. There are empirical formulas used for penetration (e.g. USN Empirical Formula), and these would have to be calculated server side. But the raw requirement for number crunching will likely exceed MWO's servers, and this game is not as rich as those other wargaming F2Ps there. This is the way you counter AP boating. No matter how much you boat, or how fast you fire, your shells will bounce off. This forces you to use the HE mechanic for burn downs and damage through armor, but the alpha damage would be limited.
Armor deflection mechanics would also penalize the artwork. Realistic mechanics force mechs to look more realistic. Mechs would have to do everything they can to reduce their front profile, feature a lot of angular and curved designs in the limbs and torsos, and also the heads. Mechs you would have to completely redesign from scratch. The mech fighting stance would be in such a way that you would have to point your sharpest angles of deflection towards your opponent. If your mech happens to be flat chested, you would have to assume the "shooter's stance", your torso has to be angled towards the target, and you are likely shooting with a big weapon in one hand.
For that reason, while its not a bad idea, this requires inventing a totally new mech IP.
For AP/HE to work, angular and deflection mechanics must be involved like with real life tank armor. You increase the slope of the armor, you increase the effective thickness. Shells entering at an angle reduces their overall penetration effectiveness. There are empirical formulas used for penetration (e.g. USN Empirical Formula), and these would have to be calculated server side. But the raw requirement for number crunching will likely exceed MWO's servers, and this game is not as rich as those other wargaming F2Ps there. This is the way you counter AP boating. No matter how much you boat, or how fast you fire, your shells will bounce off. This forces you to use the HE mechanic for burn downs and damage through armor, but the alpha damage would be limited.
Armor deflection mechanics would also penalize the artwork. Realistic mechanics force mechs to look more realistic. Mechs would have to do everything they can to reduce their front profile, feature a lot of angular and curved designs in the limbs and torsos, and also the heads. Mechs you would have to completely redesign from scratch. The mech fighting stance would be in such a way that you would have to point your sharpest angles of deflection towards your opponent. If your mech happens to be flat chested, you would have to assume the "shooter's stance", your torso has to be angled towards the target, and you are likely shooting with a big weapon in one hand.
For that reason, while its not a bad idea, this requires inventing a totally new mech IP.
#53
-
-
- The Butcher
- 1,672 posts
Member
- LocationOutreach
Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:41 PM
Nope. No iteration of this idea would be fun for anyone; Lights and Mediums will become extinct because their Armor levels are low and Internals non-existent by comparison, making this 'system' inherently more powerful against lower tonnages than higher ones because the higher you go, the more Armor you have for your AP rounds to calculate against and more Internals to absorb damage. TTK would be drastically reduced and lower tonnage Mechs suffer disproportionately more than higher tonnage Mechs... Neither of which are a good thing.
You're clearly one of those people that has fallen for the "Convergence is the Debil, Bobber Boucher!" propaganda. And this idea doesn't remotely touch on that subject just because you've decided to spread damage for 80% of the weapons. Part of Mechwarrior's charm has always been the tactical ability to shield your damage sections from your opponents and push your Mech to the absolute limit in big stompy combat, and spread damage just craps all over that.
P.S. Convergence isnt instant. It's fast, but it's not instant. Anyone who pays attention to their shots in MWO and isnt hell bent on outright lying to get their ideas heard would tell you this.
You're clearly one of those people that has fallen for the "Convergence is the Debil, Bobber Boucher!" propaganda. And this idea doesn't remotely touch on that subject just because you've decided to spread damage for 80% of the weapons. Part of Mechwarrior's charm has always been the tactical ability to shield your damage sections from your opponents and push your Mech to the absolute limit in big stompy combat, and spread damage just craps all over that.
P.S. Convergence isnt instant. It's fast, but it's not instant. Anyone who pays attention to their shots in MWO and isnt hell bent on outright lying to get their ideas heard would tell you this.
#54
-
-
- Little Helper
- 4,731 posts
Member
- LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL
Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:04 PM
Lugh, on 03 February 2016 - 11:04 AM, said:
They couldn't even calculate the Jam rate on the UAC5,it's snake eyes a 1 1 on two d6 or a 2.9% chance. Here 25% Nice work on that translation.
How many times does it need to be repeated that the jam chance is higher because UACs don't jam permanently in MWO?
Quote
I have an idea, let's make UACs have a really low chance to jam for the rest of the match so that it's possible for any UACs to jam up and be useless when you double tap them once.
Quote
HOLY **** YES I JUST CREAMED MYSELF BEST IDEA EVER OOOOHHHHHHH TT LAW IS SACROSANCT AND IT MUST BE FOLLOWED
Yeah, pretty stupid.
#55
-
-
- The Ironclad
- 1,460 posts
Member
- LocationOn the other side of the rock now.
Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:43 PM
Samial, on 14 February 2016 - 07:10 PM, said:
Lore is always going to hold back this game, because the majority of the lore was produced in the 80's by people who had very little clue what a realistic approach was, they made stuff up...
And today we must deal with poor mechanics because the purists wont change..
How on earth is that overly complex lol...
Instead when you build a mech add those three armor types to the upgrade section similar to ferrous is and give each armor a buff to each weapon set its designed to effect... its not rocket science..
And today we must deal with poor mechanics because the purists wont change..
How on earth is that overly complex lol...
Instead when you build a mech add those three armor types to the upgrade section similar to ferrous is and give each armor a buff to each weapon set its designed to effect... its not rocket science..
I think you may have misunderstood my post. I was pointing out that we already have options for AP Weapons, and an armor type to defeat it, as well as counter-play options in the form of Reactive and Reflective Armors. It just requires PGI to implement them.
I was pointing out that the OP's suggestion, while interesting, would be overly complex to implement, requiring a complete redesign of the way the game is played.
Don't get me wrong, this is MW, not BT, so it shouldn't stick 100% to the established background of BT (especially since many of the original concepts are now more than 30 years old, and the tech thoroughly outdated), BUT, it is BASED on a much loved Franchise, so they can't just slash and burn their way to some Hawken-Style Arena Shooter and call it Mechwarrior.
#56
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 245 posts
Member
- LocationUkraine
Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:11 AM
Bump
Together with this
It will greatly enrich gameplay AND increase time to kill without any dumb nerfs(weapons will have same damage/heat ratio as now). Today in game main killer is pinpoint convergence and weapons like er large lasers and high caliber cannons, which both will be splash damage(same as now c-erppc) under my suggestion. Meaning under my suggestion pinpoint damage will be possible only with AP weapons (which is pulse lasers, small caliber cannons, gauss) which will work only after destroying most of mechs armor with lasers or cannons which do only 2/3 of its damage dirrectly and 1/3 goes to splash.
Together with this
It will greatly enrich gameplay AND increase time to kill without any dumb nerfs(weapons will have same damage/heat ratio as now). Today in game main killer is pinpoint convergence and weapons like er large lasers and high caliber cannons, which both will be splash damage(same as now c-erppc) under my suggestion. Meaning under my suggestion pinpoint damage will be possible only with AP weapons (which is pulse lasers, small caliber cannons, gauss) which will work only after destroying most of mechs armor with lasers or cannons which do only 2/3 of its damage dirrectly and 1/3 goes to splash.
Edited by brroleg, 11 March 2016 - 07:12 AM.
#57
-
-
- The God of Death
- 792 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2016 - 07:28 AM
Fox With A Shotgun, on 31 January 2016 - 03:43 PM, said:
http://www.sarna.net.../Armor-Piercing
It doesn't work the way you think in the BT universe. Essentially what it does is allow players to destroy equipment inside a component even if the component still has armor, at the expense of accuracy and ammunition capacity.
It doesn't work the way you think in the BT universe. Essentially what it does is allow players to destroy equipment inside a component even if the component still has armor, at the expense of accuracy and ammunition capacity.
Just as a side note, like so many designs in TT BT, armor piercing is exactly the opposite of real tech. Sabot rounds are far more accurate than HE rounds simply because they are so much more aerodynamic. And while they do weigh more, that's simply a function of needing much higher velocity than an HE round. The flip side is that the Russian reactive armor is virtually impenetrable to HE rounds. In fact, part of the reason that current US sabot rounds became so heavy was the need to counter Kontakt-5 armor which could deflect earlier sabot rounds that didn't travel as fast. Of course, the Russians are actively developing even better reactive armor to counter that...
#58
-
-
- The Slayer
- 399 posts
Member
Posted 11 March 2016 - 08:15 AM
IMHO i would like to see all armor values doubled for all mechs..i think this would make the fights alot more fun
As it is now if ur buddy is in trouble ..odds are he's dead before you can even get close to help him.
I just think it would make the fights more intense and crazy fun and force player to maybe shoot for something other than the center torso all day long..might make shooting legs and arms a more viable option.
But at end of the day this is just my 2 pennies,
As it is now if ur buddy is in trouble ..odds are he's dead before you can even get close to help him.
I just think it would make the fights more intense and crazy fun and force player to maybe shoot for something other than the center torso all day long..might make shooting legs and arms a more viable option.
But at end of the day this is just my 2 pennies,
Edited by SplashDown, 11 March 2016 - 08:16 AM.
#59
-
-
- Survivor
- 3,877 posts
Member
- LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.
Posted 11 March 2016 - 10:00 AM
Thunder Child, on 14 February 2016 - 09:43 PM, said:
Don't get me wrong, this is MW, not BT, so it shouldn't stick 100% to the established background of BT (especially since many of the original concepts are now more than 30 years old, and the tech thoroughly outdated), BUT, it is BASED on a much loved Franchise, so they can't just slash and burn their way to some Hawken-Style Arena Shooter and call it Mechwarrior.
BattleTech and MechWarrior are not separate universes.
BattleTech is the game of armored combat that started it all. It is also the universe that everything BattleTech/MechWarrior resides in. MechWarrior was originally the pen and paper RPG based on the BattleTech universe.
The computer games are named MechWarrior because they focus on a single player, who is a MechWarrior. Technically, they should be named BattleTech: MechWarrior 2 through BattleTech: MechWarrior 4. This game should be named BattleTech: MechWarrior Online.
-----
Returning to topic, I am against this addition to the game.
Edited by Durant Carlyle, 11 March 2016 - 10:03 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
