78 replies to this topic

[Nightmare1]

@OP: Massive wall of text. Ugh.

What I got out of it in a TL:DR: Let's make all armor the same and just have front or back.

My response: Heck no.

I do like the notion of tweaking armor though. Personally, I would like to see the amount of armor we can equip increased. I know we have already done that once and that it doesn't match TT, but who cares? This ain't your Daddy's TT, and it self balances since any tonnage you contribute towards armor is tonnage that can't be used to mount weapons and heat sinks.

I also think that it's time we introduce Reflective and Reactive armors. Those would help significantly in breaking the current laser vomit meta without replacing it with a ballistics meta.

[FupDup]

On a note about Reactive armor, it's not supposed to help against ballistics. That was an MW4 thing only. The BT Reactive armor is for missiles and artillery, reducing their damage by 50%.

[Nightshade24]

SQW, on 03 March 2016 - 08:58 PM, said:

Brute force way. Pick any one of below:

1. Cut heat gauge range by up to 50% and double heat sink effects;
2. Introduced COF;
3. Make amour 30% resistance to laser damage (exclude PPCs and retain full damage to internal).

Done. Pt 1 and 3 will probably take an afternoon to implement.
As long as COF is off the table and nobody want a 30% dmg nerf to laser, the only way to increase TTK is restricting alpha potential.

Now tell me how to do part 3 without making lots of weapons useless?
Or how do to part 1 without making a mech overheat with 1 weapon firing (ie a ER PPC)

[Variant1]

no OP we should not touch armor. Making all armor combined into one is going to result in a really small ttk. I say we simply make the center torso hitbox smaller across all mechs and bam alpha warrior is curbed.

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2016 - 06:42 AM, said:

Yet again I will say this. With a macro the gauss charge up is a one stage mechanism, without a macro its a 3 stage mechanism....

Right, at the expense of trigger control you can use a gauss macro.

Quote

Using a macro is no different than before the charge was added, minus an extremely easy to manage fire delay.....

It's not different except for the reason that it's completely different durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Quote

How is this beyond understanding for the pro third party program crowd?

Because you're wrong.

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

Good players wouldn't start charging their guass if theres no shot......

So you always sit there exposed for the full gauss charge duration because you don't preemptively charge a shot ever? If so, that doesn't sound like being a good player to me.

Quote

Your saying that being able to charge the gauss and not shoot is a good thing....it just doesn't make sense.

So do you just let your shots fly every time you hit the fire button rather than wait a moment longer to adjust the shot as needed? I have a hard time believing that every time the gauss is charged up the shot is ready and lined up immediately after it's charged, so that sounds like a good way of missing shots not infrequently.

[wanderer]

Amagalmating everything into a single "hitbox" basically makes the entire damage system go straight past normal Battletech-ish things into the much more generic shooter style.

But hey, since the meta will always revolve around "which weapons put all their damage into a single hitbox the most efficiently", we can shuffle things around till doomsday without actually fixing the problem- that is, some weapons can circumvent 80% or so of their targets capacity to take damage by hitting an easily targetable spot on the 'Mech.

Until that changes, those will be the automatic best choices, with the only changes being which one based on the latest weapon tweaks. Period.

[Gorgo7]

Hit points suck as a damage system. Removing armour zones and treating them as a pool is a terrible idea. Try World of warships or World of tanks to get an idea of what it is about.

[Lightfoot]

The hit-boxes on MWO's mechs are huge. My Shadow Cat takes hits to the CT like it was a 95 ton Hauptmann from MW4 and MW4's lasers were instant hit with no duration time. The MW4 Shadow Cat was hard to get a CT hit on, which is good because it has low armor. Lower than a 95 ton mech for sure.

Its not the weapons or the group-fire, it's the hit box size making it too easy to hit and kill mechs. Simple as that. The easy solution is buff the CT and side torsos of all the mechs. The best solution is replace the hit-boxes with better, more complex hit-boxes. MWO's weapons are really weak already compared to previous MechWarrior games so it's not the weapons at all. It's the very easy to hit mechs.

[Johnny Z]

Pjwned, on 04 March 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

Right, at the expense of trigger control you can use a gauss macro.



It's not different except for the reason that it's completely different durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.



Because you're wrong.



So you always sit there exposed for the full gauss charge duration because you don't preemptively charge a shot ever? If so, that doesn't sound like being a good player to me.



So do you just let your shots fly every time you hit the fire button rather than wait a moment longer to adjust the shot as needed? I have a hard time believing that every time the gauss is charged up the shot is ready and lined up immediately after it's charged, so that sounds like a good way of missing shots not infrequently.

Well then you wont mind if they add an auto fire option. You like the 3 stage mechanic that players macro fine.

No reason that everyone has to have the 3 stage mechanic except macro users.

[Pjwned]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Well then you wont mind if they add an auto fire option. You like the 3 stage mechanic that players macro fine.

No reason that everyone has to have the 3 stage mechanic except macro users.

That would be fine. I wouldn't use that option because I realize the value of holding a shot for longer than it takes to charge or even canceling a charge in the middle of it, but if people want it and they can't otherwise manage a gauss charge then I have no problem with them having an option that's largely inferior to managing the gauss charge as intended (but still better than not managing it at all).

Edited by Pjwned, 04 March 2016 - 09:24 PM.

[Josef Koba]

Wasn't armor doubled from TT values already, or am I mistaken? I don't recall my Atlases having 100 points of CT armor in TT.

All in all, I can't support this idea for many of the reasons already mentioned. It would basically turn the game into a "center mass shooter" more than it is. There would be little incentive to aiming anywhere else. No attempts at disarming your opponent (so to speak) - a skill I pride myself as having. I like removing limbs. And if this system were implemented, would there be a need for animation depicting missing arms? I guess it would mean that my mech has X HP. Front, back, side; doesn't matter. I still have X HP total. No thanks. I appreciate the effort in trying to come up with a solution, but I don't think this is it.

I would like to see something done with FF that made it at least worth considering. Maybe it wouldn't be lore correct, but surely there's a way to make there be an actual trade off in deciding between FF and ES. As of right now, there isn't much of a reason to ever choose FF if you don't have to. There are a lot of options to consider. Maybe a percentage bonus to armor, or a certain amount of damage resistance. I don't really know, since I'm not a game designer, but there are lots of smart people here who could come up with some ideas (they already have in other, older threads). All I know is that I've never ran FF on anything heavier than a light (other than clan mechs...).

[Khobai]

Makes more sense to reapportion armor based on how often locations get hit in MWO

If CT gets hit more often in MWO than tabletop, then CT should get more armor in MWO than it gets in tabletop

makes sense right?


Thats kindve what PP was initially trying to accomplish with armor/structure quirks... but then they screwed the whole thing up by also trying to balance ISXL vs CXL by using structure quirks.

Edited by Khobai, 04 March 2016 - 10:38 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Bullseye69, on 04 March 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

In table top there was different types of armor. There was reflective,reactive,generic and ferro just implent those problem decrease. Say reflective reduces damage NY aset number same for other types you still take damage but less. Drawback is take more tonnage to completely armor up.

Yes, but when did those come about? Remember, we're timeline limited here.

[wanderer]

Khobai, on 04 March 2016 - 10:35 PM, said:

Makes more sense to reapportion armor based on how often locations get hit in MWO

If CT gets hit more often in MWO than tabletop, then CT should get more armor in MWO than it gets in tabletop

makes sense right?

Thats kindve what PP was initially trying to accomplish with armor/structure quirks... but then they screwed the whole thing up by also trying to balance ISXL vs CXL by using structure quirks.

Basically, the problem here is that whatever is the easiest killshot is also an easy aimed-at point.

The problem, as always has been that in MWO we can be incredibly precise with our weapons in a system that depends on spreading damage to give reasonable TTK. Well, with some weapons- and that's why they're the meta and all other weapons are considered trash-tier.

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 05 March 2016 - 01:06 AM, said:

Yes, but when did those come about? Remember, we're timeline limited here.

Most of the listed armor types are later in the timeline- but hardened armor is not. Effectively, it allows double the armor tonnage for a small loss in agility and speed vs. standard armor.

[BoseMensch]

Splash damage.... A certain portion of all damage, say 30% of total damage, from whatever source, is spread around to connecting hitboxes instead of being wholly localized. Randomize the hitboxes effected by such splash damage, and viola, you have TT mechanics (nearly). You still maintain the skill required to target components and take them out, but reduce the effectiveness of alphas. Instead of two shots to CT, it takes 4 because only 70% of the total damage is going to the CT, and 30% is spread to other areas. The mechanic already exists, just expand on it.

[Scarlet Tempest]

As a Jenner Pilot obviously I benefit from the high heat cap but I personally wouldn't mind half the heat cap. Though how ever I'm even more in favor of going the opposite route and following the TT and giving penalties based on how high your heat rises. Either way the only thing I don't want is Power draw. They would have to balance it correctly to match lore and I honestly just don't see that happening especially when you got mechs like the Supernova. Meh It's a complicated situation either way they go with it there will always be a lash back from the community. They will do what they see is right And we will just have to live with it.

[LordNothing]

i dont think the armor is the problem. its double what it should be and everyone always maxes it. the problem is mostly laser boating.

Edited by LordNothing, 08 March 2016 - 01:30 AM.

[RockmachinE]

SQW, on 03 March 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

MWO is the last refuge for the Quake heroes of yesteryear that got left behind by the CS recoil revolution.

What?

NO!

MWO has nothing to do with quake. Quake was a fast action skill based twitch shooter, where even a simple thing such as movement took years to perfect. MWO is a lazy slow *** tank-robot game with loadouts. Never compare MWO to Quake. Never.

[Widowmaker1981]

Johnny Z, on 04 March 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Well then you wont mind if they add an auto fire option. You like the 3 stage mechanic that players macro fine.

No reason that everyone has to have the 3 stage mechanic except macro users.

Id be absolutely fine with that. Because no one good would use it, because it would suck.

Im going to say this one more time, and thats it:

Because there is a 0.75s delay from when you start charging the Gauss to when it fires, it very frequently happens that what looks like a clean shot when you push the fire button turns into an unclean shot 0.75s later (enemy moves behind cover, shot that you expected when you started pre-charging doesn't exist as expected, friendly moves into fire line, enemy dies, etc). In those cases an autofire macro (or mechanic, if implemented) will cause you to waste ammo in the best case and shoot a friend in the back in the worst case. Thus, the ability to cancel the shot is very useful. Since the action of clicking, holding and letting go is extremely easy, it is not worth giving up the ability to cancel the shot. And that is not even mentioning the fact that it is easier to hit what you want when you have fine control over the exact time the shot is released.

Stop being a moron.