80 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

So I was thinking about balance and things like arms/legs actually ripping off fairly easy in comparison to things like torsos. Between the current balance and the ability to overload front armor like crazy, is it possibly that's the reason for the durability descrepency between torsos and limbs and needing to quirk them?

I know we have structure quirks for torsos as well, but I think that ties into this. If armor values of front/rear torsos were locked to the default |RATIO| of their stock counterparts (not locked to the default values but the relation between them), would this possibly help balance?

With mechs frontloading armor it requires more damage to break them, and limb armor maxes in comparison stay at default, which I believe makes it seem easier to break them and is why durability quirks on them have been heavily needed across most mechs.

So, do you think instituting a max front/rear value in the ratio of the standard values may help to further the balance of the game? Or do you think it would create a worse need for quirks and arbitrary balance factors?

[FupDup]

Mechs with the highest ratio of rear armor would be, on average, inferior to mechs that had a lower ratio of rear armor. That, and TTK would go down for the most part. It would result in a greater need for durability quirks on many mechs.

Mechs frontloading their armor is not the disease, it's just a symptom. The "disease" is that for various reasons, getting attacked from the front is much more frequent and getting attacked from the rear is somewhat uncommon.

With that being said, I don't know if it can ever be fully solved. Even real life vehicles such as tanks focus the majority of their armor to the front and secondary armor to the sides, and have very little armor on the rear or top.

Edited by FupDup, 10 July 2016 - 05:54 PM.

[Thorqemada]

It would lower TTK even more with reduced Frontarmor Values.
The rear would still be a 1-shot armor gone thing as most Mechs have Alphas exceeding Rearamor Values.

Imho we should increase the health of strucutre + internals depending on the Slotusage (n numbers of Slots = n x health).
TTK would increase and Equipment crits become more significant.

Edited by Thorqemada, 10 July 2016 - 06:00 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

...I mean, I was asking if you think having an enforced Front/Rear max ratio would provide a constant for further balance? Not if it would make TTK better/worse. As the game is it would definitely lower TTK, that's not a question. I feel like the consistent frontload of armor actually causes a durability balance within any mech itself, a higher front torso armor compared to the unchanging limb armor.

I'm also unaware if there are any mechs that naturally have a significantly higher percentage of rear armor compared to their total torso armor? From what I can tell they all carry roughly 1/5-1/3 of their total applied armor on their rear ct (fire support mechs like the catapult seem to have a higher rear percentage) while the sides seem to be roughly 1/4 I believe.

Maybe I'm overthinking things? With pinpoint targeting it may actually create more difficulty balancing then, with less arm/leg destruction and more cases of always aiming for the torsos... Its also possible this topic wouldn't make sense without things like targeting inaccuracy; speed, movement, getting hit, etc make it harder to hit a target at distance due to a limited speed of onboard computers adjusting the accuracy in realtime?

-shrugs- i dunno, thought it might be an interesting topic, don't discuss it like its a suggestion or wanted addition, just something that can be talked about.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 10 July 2016 - 06:55 PM.

[Wintersdark]

MauttyKoray, on 10 July 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

So, do you think instituting a max front/rear value in the ratio of the standard values may help to further the balance of the game? Or do you think it would create a worse need for quirks and arbitrary balance factors?

It would just lower TTK, and we don't need that.

Arms and legs don't really matter anyways: if someone is shooting at your arms, except in extremely rare edge cases, they're bad, stupid, or both. Side torsos are always a better target, even if the mech's primary weapons are in that arm, and arms are nearly as sturdy as side torsos.

Legs as well pack considerable armor, except when people shave them. Legs at least kill or disable targets though, unlike arms.

MauttyKoray, on 10 July 2016 - 06:51 PM, said:

...I mean, I was asking if you think having an enforced Front/Rear max ratio would provide a constant for further balance? Not if it would make TTK better/worse. As the game is it would definitely lower TTK, that's not a question. I feel like the consistent frontload of armor actually causes a durability balance within any mech itself, a higher front torso armor compared to the unchanging limb armor.

I'm also unaware if there are any mechs that naturally have a significantly higher percentage of rear armor compared to their total torso armor?

Maybe I'm overthinking things? With pinpoint targeting it may actually create more difficulty balancing then, with less arm/leg destruction and more cases of always aiming for the torsos... Its also possible this topic wouldn't make sense without things like targeting inaccuracy; speed, movement, getting hit, etc make it harder to hit a target at distance due to a limited speed of onboard computers adjusting the accuracy in realtime?

-shrugs- i dunno, thought it might be an interesting topic, don't discuss it like its a suggestion or wanted addition, just something that can be talked about.

I'm not seeing how theres really even a discrepancy? I mean, arms are not particularly more fragile than side torsos as it stands now...? I dunno, I'm not really seeing a problem?

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 10 July 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

Mechs with the highest ratio of rear armor would be, on average, inferior to mechs that had a lower ratio of rear armor. That, and TTK would go down for the most part. It would result in a greater need for durability quirks on many mechs.

Mechs frontloading their armor is not the disease, it's just a symptom. The "disease" is that for various reasons, getting attacked from the front is much more frequent and getting attacked from the rear is somewhat uncommon.

With that being said, I don't know if it can ever be fully solved. Even real life vehicles such as tanks focus the majority of their armor to the front and secondary armor to the sides, and have very little armor on the rear or top.

I do love frontloaded "compuberpro" armor. When they bring those mechs to the chaos of my PUG queue and forget that they get flanked on whole hell of a lot more often there...it makes it so much easier for a sneaky SoB of a Medium Pilot to punch their kidneys out their throat.

What works in the relatively controlled environment of team play don't always hold up in ChaosLand.

But I'm ok with comps disagreeing. Makes my life easier and my KDr appreciates it.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 July 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

I do love frontloaded "compuberpro" armor. When they bring those mechs to the chaos of my PUG queue and forget that they get flanked on whole hell of a lot more often there...it makes it so much easier for a sneaky SoB of a Medium Pilot to punch their kidneys out their throat.

What works in the relatively controlled environment of team play don't always hold up in ChaosLand.

But I'm ok with comps disagreeing. Makes my life easier and my KDr appreciates it.

I didn't say anything about comp in my post. You're projecting right now.

Even in my terribad underhive I die from frontal damage far more often than from rear damage. It's about being prepared for the majority of situations rather than being prepared for the minority at the cost of being a bit less effective in the majority.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 10 July 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

I didn't say anything about comp in my post. You're projecting right now.

Even in my terribad underhive I die from frontal damage far more often than from rear damage. It's about being prepared for the majority of situations rather than being prepared for the minority at the cost of being a bit less effective in the majority.

that's OK, like I said, I'm cool with the reasoning behind it.

As are every Light pilot worth their salt. Pile more of it to the front I say! I'm sure that extra 5-8 armor makes all the difference in soaking that second or third 50-80 pt alpha.

What I do know is it makes a world of difference for me that you guys DON'T have it on your back. Heck, I'm cool if you wanna run zero rear armor. really

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 July 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:

I do love frontloaded "compuberpro" armor. When they bring those mechs to the chaos of my PUG queue and forget that they get flanked on whole hell of a lot more often there...it makes it so much easier for a sneaky SoB of a Medium Pilot to punch their kidneys out their throat.

What works in the relatively controlled environment of team play don't always hold up in ChaosLand.

But I'm ok with comps disagreeing. Makes my life easier and my KDr appreciates it.

None of the guys I know suddenly up their rear armor for solo pugging.

It's simply a matter of minimizing risk of low rear armor through positioning.

I think on my old DW builds I'd run like 6 back armor, which was higher than normal.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimax, on 10 July 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

None of the guys I know suddenly up their rear armor for solo pugging.

It's simply a matter of minimizing risk of low rear armor through positioning.

I think on my old DW builds I'd run like 6 back armor, which was higher than normal.

Oh, I agree. They don't. And I thank them for it. Trust me, my IS Medium's don't have the firepower to have to deal with stuff like Armor, so the more naked your bum, the better my day is.

Cuz lemme tell ya, no matter how much I frontload my Hunchbacks or Centurions, they just ain't got what it takes to trade alphas with the Heavies and Assaults out there these days. So If I'm gonna make any kind of a living, I need me as many naked mech booties running about as possible.

If other Medium and Light jocks ain't figured out they need to be picking pockets instead of trying to trade fisticuffs with the Big Boys, well, guess that explains the whining from the Light Pilots over the rescale. (If you're 50 tons or lighter and trading paint face to face you are DOING IT WRONG, at least in PUGlandia.)

On the other hand... that 5-8 pts armor on my Medium Mech's booty is life and death if an Oxide or Jenny II pop behind me in PUGlandia. Compared to about .5 seconds more survivability to frontal damage from all the focus fire uber alphas out there.

*shrugs*

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 10 July 2016 - 07:47 PM.

[Ultimax]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 July 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

Oh, I agree. They don't. And I thank them for it. Trust me, my IS Medium's don't have the firepower to have to deal with stuff like Armor, so the more naked your bum, the better my day is.

Cuz lemme tell ya, no matter how much I frontload my Hunchbacks or Centurions, they just ain't got what it takes to trade alphas with the Heavies and Assaults out there these days. So If I'm gonna make any kind of a living, I need me as many naked mech booties running about as possible.

If other Medium and Light jocks ain't figured out they need to be picking pockets instead of trying to trade fisticuffs with the Big Boys, well, guess that explains the whining from the Light Pilots over the rescale. (If you're 50 tons or lighter and trading paint face to face you are DOING IT WRONG, at least in PUGlandia.)

Of course they go for back armor, especially lights.

Just need to minimize giving it to them.

Only the oxide/IIC SRM bombers really give pause but you need to run like 16 back armor to survive 6x6 SRMs anyway which simply isn't worth the trade off.

Keep walls or allies nearby.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ultimax, on 10 July 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Of course they go for back armor, especially lights.

Just need to minimize giving it to them.

Only the oxide/IIC SRM bombers really give pause but you need to run like 16 back armor to survive 6x6 SRMs anyway which simply isn't worth the trade off.

Keep walls or allies nearby.

Sounds good in theory. Very doable with disciplined teamplay. A heck of a lot less controllable, at least in my experience in CatHerder land. And Doubly so if you are one of the poor schmucks who have to wander about the fringes, flanking and skirmishing to make a living. I've learned even a so called "wingman" more often sits there liek an idiot when you have that Oxide or Locust nipping at your jewels.

Call me jaded, but my Solo play has taught me to count on NO ONE. And again, Walls are only of limited use for survival in a 50 ton IS mech, most times.... since keeping moving is the ONLY way I'm staying alive. Heavies and Assaults probably can get a lot more mileage out of it, but probably half my kills are backstabs, even so.

I just don't think the "hard and fast" rules of one format of play necessarily translates verbatim to the other.

[Wintersdark]

I dunno. I solopug all the time, almost exclusively. I run 8 rear armour on everything but lights, and I die to rear attacks... Not never, but so rarely I couldn't even guess. I seriously die to headshots as much as rear coring.

Hell, when fighting 1v1 in the pugqueue, I deliberately flash my rear to provoke an attack I know I can spread, to cost them an alpha.

Even SRM bombers, unless there's more than one, I still never die to rear attacks. Legging, if I am gonna die, more often than not.

I've never found it hard to protect my rear in solo queue matches. Even in my Assaults... And I tend to run smaller engines than most.

And that's obviously not at all influenced by comp play reasoning.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 10 July 2016 - 08:44 PM, said:

I dunno. I solopug all the time, almost exclusively. I run 8 rear armour on everything but lights, and I die to rear attacks... Not never, but so rarely I couldn't even guess. I seriously die to headshots as much as rear coring.

Hell, when fighting 1v1 in the pugqueue, I deliberately flash my rear to provoke an attack I know I can spread, to cost them an alpha.

Even SRM bombers, unless there's more than one, I still never die to rear attacks. Legging, if I am gonna die, more often than not.

I've never found it hard to protect my rear in solo queue matches. Even in my Assaults... And I tend to run smaller engines than most.

And that's obviously not at all influenced by comp play reasoning.

you do realize 8 armor is about 5 more than most leets claim to run? You bad bro.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 July 2016 - 08:46 PM, said:

you do realize 8 armor is about 5 more than most leets claim to run? You bad bro.

Well, am tier 2. One day!

[LordNothing]

i usually do 8 points of armor in the back, full front torso armor. on some slower mechs i might go up to 10 points.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

A fun game to play for those who wonder what a good ratio for armor distribution is for every death through the front, drop your rear armor by one point, and when you die through the rear bump it up one.

Honestly if I'm playing right I still shouldn't need rear armor unless the team is failing to have any sort of teamwork or aggression (generally both).

I've found playing aggressive is key to solo pugs (or at least carrying them) and more often than not, having more front armor tends to work better, that and knowing how to counter twist against lights.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 July 2016 - 09:28 PM.

[Kubernetes]

I used to run around 10 rear armor when I started playing. And then I noticed that I wasn't really dying to too many back shots, so I tried to run enough so that I wouldn't die to a single 36-point alpha (because that's what all the Cheetahs were putting out). Now I just run like 2-3 across the board. It's not because it's what the leet players do, but just from several years' experience.

Someone else pointed out that tanks in real life front-load armor. But the first tanks in WWI and even many of those in WWII had more broadly-distributed armor. Battle experience taught designers that it paid to put armor up front. Even now, I rarely die to rear shots.

Also, is TTK really that bad? I feel like it seems bad if you get hosed down by multiple enemies (or one dakkabear), but otherwise it seems like durability seems alright.

[Bishop Steiner]

Kubernetes, on 10 July 2016 - 09:35 PM, said:

I used to run around 10 rear armor when I started playing. And then I noticed that I wasn't really dying to too many back shots, so I tried to run enough so that I wouldn't die to a single 36-point alpha (because that's what all the Cheetahs were putting out). Now I just run like 2-3 across the board. It's not because it's what the leet players do, but just from several years' experience.

Someone else pointed out that tanks in real life front-load armor. But the first tanks in WWI and even many of those in WWII had more broadly-distributed armor. Battle experience taught designers that it paid to put armor up front. Even now, I rarely die to rear shots.

Also, is TTK really that bad? I feel like it seems bad if you get hosed down by multiple enemies (or one dakkabear), but otherwise it seems like durability seems alright.

And yet even today tanks don't run armor to their rear that is 10% or less of their frontal glacis.

As for TTK, in most cases 1v1 it's fine. Problem is we rarely see 1v1. Second problem is, almost every proposal to reduce focus fire ttk really screws up the 1v1 ttk ratio, too.

Which is why I still favor aiming and meaningful heat effects to regulate ttk over upping armor or reducing damage. When you land a hit it should hurt. Problem is the Btech armor system was predicated on it being a lot harder to hit in the first place, and not being able to instant converge every shot to the sane component, every time.

If people want to keep using basic Btech values, or simply doesn't work if one ignores that.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 July 2016 - 09:24 PM, said:

A fun game to play for those who wonder what a good ratio for armor distribution is for every death through the front, drop your rear armor by one point, and when you die through the rear bump it up one.

Honestly if I'm playing right I still shouldn't need rear armor unless the team is failing to have any sort of teamwork or aggression (generally both).

I've found playing aggressive is key to solo pugs (or at least carrying them) and more often than not, having more front armor tends to work better, that and knowing how to counter twist against lights.

And I gotta assume assume at tier 1, people must support those pushes more, our you'd find yourself surrounded a lot more often.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 July 2016 - 09:48 PM, said:

And I gotta assume assume at tier 1, people must support those pushes more, our you'd find yourself surrounded a lot more often.

I wish that's only really the case when you recognize a bunch of the names (so basically good tier 1 players), but that is generally the sign of whether a team was going to win in the first place. Once that retreat starts, it rarely stops.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 July 2016 - 09:57 PM.