Shifty McSwift, on 25 April 2017 - 02:15 AM, said:
The crit system is randomness. The headshot system suffers from that same randomness, the idea of mechs dying to a single hit may be fun in some ways for the guy doing it, but it kind of sucks in concept for every mech to have a "killswitch" slot like that, not matter their weight or distinction, there is already high risk in backshots and the like.
Sounds more like a "you" problem for not taking at least 12 points of head armor to not get oneshot by D-Gauss. 12 points is usually good enough for everything else. I always enjoy getting those occasional headshots on mechs who decide that since the hitboxes are so small noone could ever hit the component so take 0 armor on it.
Shifty McSwift, on 25 April 2017 - 02:15 AM, said:
The issue with hit registration is not the point here at all, that is an entirely separate issue. And there was never a "removing" of well placed shot bonuses at all in my suggestion, the head slot is always located within the front CT slot, the idea of having that vital location within all mech CT dealing double damage instead of being a separate component in itself, is far from removing the system.
Not like a 180mm shell hitting a pilot directly should harm him in any way.
Shifty McSwift, on 26 April 2017 - 12:31 AM, said:
Consider my idea applying all over a mech (again the shabby hitboxes we have now are beside the point, the idea itself in a working system is what I am discussing), say for legs, the 'knee' and 'ankle' joints of a given mech could be considered the weak points of the leg structure, providing extra damage when targeted within the leg itself (like a head slot for legs with my damage multiplier idea), similarly for arms, the elbow and inner shoulder points might be the critical locations there etc. In that system, granted it was working, the idea of "critical hits" could be entirely replaced with critical locations within each structure point, which overall would be more realistic IMO than what we have, not just for headshots.
I'm all for weakpoints. However, they'd need to do a proper destructible armor system to make it work. While popularized mech designs have exposed joints that would realistically cripple the vehicle, realistic mech designs have those points armored with extra bits of armor that are either add on (spaced armor along the lines of a
Panzer IV) or designed in a way to maximize the armor over those sections (double jointed, structure covering, etc). Just typing in "mech" to google images give examples of "proper" and "popular" mech designs.
Examples of "proper" mech design;
Essentially anything that maximizes frontal firepower while providing as much protection to the weakpoints (joints) without sacrificing too much in mobility. Also notice how these don't have exposed cockpits. In a realistic setting, these could actually hold their own and actually be useful on the battlefield.
Examples of "popular" mech design;
Essentially designs that have exposed or very lightly armored weakpoints or that have limbs/structures that are so thin, they'd break apart with even a glancing hit or near miss. Another popular design of mechs that isn't proper would be to have exposed cockpits (like most of BT's mechs). In a world with lasers, tracking missiles, and other, these designs would be torn apart in a realistic setting.
However, there are tons of designs in between the "popular" and "proper" ways of designing a mech. Mostly, humanoid designs. They really depend on the angles of armor, thickness of legs, and their ability to mount forward facing weaponry. For MWO examples:
Take the Shadow Hawk; thick limbs, angular armor, room for tons of frontal firepower. Leans towards "proper".
Take the Victor; thin limbs (except gun arm), bulky midsection with no room for weapons nor armor. Leans toward "popular".
Take the Banshee; generally bulky and angular armor, loads of weapon mounting possibilities, has very exposed weakpoints (waist, hips, shoulders). Leans towards "proper" but is mainly in the middle due to the weakpoints.
However, these would all be classed as "popular" as they have exposed cockpits.
Tying this all back to the topic; Weakpoints, while a good idea on paper, would lead to major issues due to current mech geometry (how exposed, where they are). It would need a proper counterbalancing mechanic or it would break the game to where even more mechs would be relegated to paperweight status. While having an exposed head/cockpit is unrealistic in the first place, being able to insta-kill by headshot on that exposed cockpit with a pilot inside is realistic and makes sense. However, the headshotting is balanced by the fact that you can heavily armor that exposed piece of glass and that the hitboxes are far smaller than their cosmetic appearance. While it is annoying that you can get insta-killed by a headshot, it not only makes sense but is the most effective way of taking down a mech (if you hit).
Shifty McSwift, on 26 April 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:
But I think starting with the headboxes would be a good starting position, as it is that most vital hitbox of all. Instead of a separate structural component entirely, to function as the main CT vital point with conditions attached, doubling damage is just an example too, there could be much more complexity involved in the conditions too.
If the cockpit was a part of the core of the mech with the exposed head only being sensors and stuff (Armored Core style), then I'd agree. However, following the designs of MWO and logic (oxymoron, I know) with the physical being of the pilot sitting right behind that piece of glass, it just wouldn't make any sense.
Edited by Athom83, 27 April 2017 - 06:10 PM.
0
:origin()/pre05/eefb/th/pre/f/2011/149/9/8/black_tank_mecha_by_nidaram-d2ykj8n.jpg)
