5 replies to this topic

[Snazzy Dragon]

What if we took away half the structure on ALL mechs, leaving the current structure quirks, and converted the lost structure into additional armor?

All mechs would be slightly tankier without going overboard, and pilots that choose to have mechs that frontload all of their armor will be even more vulnerable to rear flanks, but will have better trading capacity in the front.

Thoughts?

[El Bandito]

Such a change will further obsolete MGs and LBXs. Just so you know.

[Vanguard836]

50+100 Or 25+125

Sorry I fail to see how this is effectually supposed to make mechs tankier as the same amount of damage would be needed.
It would also make an attack from behind even more of a fast kill.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Soooooooo more tonnage needed for armor?

[Escef]

Vanguard836, on 06 January 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

50+100 Or 25+125

Sorry I fail to see how this is effectually supposed to make mechs tankier as the same amount of damage would be needed.
It would also make an attack from behind even more of a fast kill.

I think "tankier" in this case refers to components getting critted less often. Not usually an issue in lights and mediums, but many heavies and assaults will lose weapons before losing the body section they are mounted in. Also, seems to me the OP wanted to make a back attack more likely to be a single volley kill.

Edited by Escef, 06 January 2017 - 12:53 PM.

[Roughneck45]

Rear ct's become even more efficient kills, that's what happens lol.

Not a fan of the idea. I think internals should nearly always be > than armor.

Edited by Roughneck45, 06 January 2017 - 02:10 PM.