42 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

right now Crits dont matter perhaps as much as they should,
when dealing with Damage, usually the Component is lost before the Items within,
this puts Crit weapons in an odd place, and Item health balancing as well,

so
=Should we Double Structure?=
this would make Structure and Armor Values Equal,
(in MWO as well as TT you have 2 Times as much Armor as Internal Structure)
having more structure would mean you would be alive longer after your Armor is gone,
and as such your Components would have more time to become destroyed(Crit'ed)


=Please Note=
yes i am aware that both Armor and Structure have been Doubled from TT Values,
and that this was done because unlike in TT you can Aim better this being an FPS,
(this would mean Armor would be (x2), and Structure would be (x4), from TT)


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

[El Bandito]

I personally think PGI should focus less on crit aspect on meh weapons such as LBXs and MGs, and just straight up buff their damage. In the case of MGs, CoF reduction or elimination is ideal. There is no reason to make a tiny weapon like them to have such a big spread. Less situational, more reliability.

The doubling of structure, while having its own merit, is gonna be far more complicated to balance fully, I fear.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 July 2017 - 05:31 PM.

[Khobai]

Doubling internal structure seems a bit much to me. maybe 50% more internal structure.

But I would also like to see standard structure give a +25% internal structure bonus

that would encourage people to use standard structure over endo structure. which would also give people a reason to use ferro fibrous.

[Roughneck45]

IMO, crit is good for tabletop but its a pretty un fun mechanic in this game.

Its a whole lot of suck for the receiving end and not a lot of fun for the firing end.

Its more fun to blow components off than to get a crit, and it really sucks to lose your AC20 on an atlas the second your armor is stripped when you have so much structure left.

I'm sure it could be balanced, I guess I just don't like RNG.

Edited by Roughneck45, 11 July 2017 - 05:31 PM.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

But I would also like to see standard structure give a +25% internal structure bonus

Good idea. Alternatively PGI could give Std structure -50% crit chance receiving, or something.

Edited by El Bandito, 11 July 2017 - 05:33 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Its more fun to blow components off than to get a crit, and it really sucks to lose your AC20 on an atlas the second your armor is stripped when you have so much structure left.

Except your AC20 is going to live longer on average because of more internal structure.

Yes it will still run the risk of being critted, but the risk of being critted isnt being increased, its staying the same as it already is.

And yes your AC20 has a higher chance of eventually getting critted out. But most of the time youll still have an operational AC20 longer than you wouldve had with less internal structure. The only exception being the situation where your AC20 wouldve gotten critted out regardless of the extra internal structure or not.

Edited by Khobai, 11 July 2017 - 05:43 PM.

[Roughneck45]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 05:36 PM, said:

Except your AC20 is going to live longer on average because of more internal structure.

Yes it will still run the risk of being critted, but the risk of being critted isnt being increased, its staying the same as it already is.

And yes your AC20 has a higher chance of eventually getting critted out. But most of the time youll still have an operational AC20 longer than you wouldve had with less internal structure. The only exception being the situation where your AC20 wouldve gotten critted out regardless of the extra internal structure or not.

And like I said at the bottom, im sure it can be balanced, but is it fun? RNG isn't fun IMO.

[Andi Nagasia]

Roughneck45, on 11 July 2017 - 05:46 PM, said:

And like I said at the bottom, im sure it can be balanced, but is it fun? RNG isn't fun IMO.

well most games have a Crit Mechanic, its just in most games you only have 1Target Zone,
and the Crits usually just means more Damage, here you can lose something to Crits,

[Andi Nagasia]

El Bandito, on 11 July 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

I personally think PGI should focus less on crit aspect on meh weapons such as LBXs and MGs, and just straight up buff their damage. In the case of MGs, CoF reduction or elimination is ideal. There is no reason to make a tiny weapon like them to have such a big spread. Less situational, more reliability.

The doubling of structure, while having its own merit, is gonna be far more complicated to balance fully, I fear.

Perhaps, but it also allows to increase TTK, wail also increasing the Utility of those so called Crit Weapons,
i think right now Crit weapons dont really matter as much, which i think this would help,
(personally i would rather see this, than something like threw Armor crits)

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

Doubling internal structure seems a bit much to me. maybe 50% more internal structure.

But I would also like to see standard structure give a +25% internal structure bonus

that would encourage people to use standard structure over endo structure. which would also give people a reason to use ferro fibrous.

well i said Double as then it would be the same as Armor,
this would help Crit weapons as well as help Assaults, which can be a Burden at the farther end of the scale,
i would completely agree with a Buff to STD Structure, but Perhaps a Reduced Chance to get Crit,
or the opposit for Endo, an increased Chance to get Crit,

[Twinkleblade]

What would be interesting is when you get guaranteed crits but only when hitting a target from behind. Arm and legs cannot be crit ever but if you hit the rear CT/ST of a mech it would be 100% crit.

Might be a buff for lights/players who have less problems sneaking up on people.

[Shifty McSwift]

El Bandito, on 11 July 2017 - 05:33 PM, said:

Good idea. Alternatively PGI could give Std structure -50% crit chance receiving or something.

Or +25% structure and a -25% crit chance just to compensate the increase and further buff it, but then I think you will still find it only used in overly heavy mechs on the IS side, who are already quite tough in that regard. I think cXL and LFE would still get chosen in most cases.

Though that is really just indicative of the problem with STD engines. Extra crit space means little when you have no tonnage to utilise it.

I don't know if I would vote for such a straight buff though at this stage, powercreep is real, and that is very directly powercreep, my preference would lie in the counter version of this balance in just making XLs and LFEs weaker in structure (convert that +25% to STD, into -25% to LFE and cXL).

[GoatHILL]

People have been complaining about high alphas forever so you want to push game even farther towards high alpha?

As an IS only player most of my mechs are limited to sub 35 alpha FLPPD. Power creep is the problem the more armour you add the more you push the meta to high damage only mechs.

[Andi Nagasia]

GoatHILL, on 11 July 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

People have been complaining about high alphas forever so you want to push game even farther towards high alpha?

As an IS only player most of my mechs are limited to sub 35 alpha FLPPD. Power creep is the problem the more armour you add the more you push the meta to high damage only mechs.

um how?
i understand that having more health will cause people to have to do more damage,
but to say that having more health will just cause more High Alphas i think is abit Extensive,
in retrospect will having less health suddenly reduce the amount of High Alphas?

i think people use High Alphas as a Poke Tool, fire all your Weapons then Twist in defense,
Having a High Alpha is a play style that doesnt change depending on the health of your target,
its based on how you Build and Play your Mech, some like Pop-tarting, some Like Brawling Ect,
what this will do is help some one survive a high Alpha more often, and make Crits matter more,


you say as an IS player you are Limited to 35PPFLD Alphas? ok i can say Clan has the same?
and Lasers Spread and with those IS players can get to 57 and Clan players can get to a very Hot 66,
but as i said the Damage Spreads so its unlikely all that Damage will be to 1 Location,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 11 July 2017 - 08:05 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

GoatHILL, on 11 July 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

People have been complaining about high alphas forever so you want to push game even farther towards high alpha?

As an IS only player most of my mechs are limited to sub 35 alpha FLPPD. Power creep is the problem the more armour you add the more you push the meta to high damage only mechs.

Sounds like u are using standard engines or playing medium or lights only too, my IS heavy alphas are around the 50 damage mark.

[Shifty McSwift]

Andi Nagasia, on 11 July 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

um how?
i understand that having more health will cause people to have to do more damage,
but to say that having more health will just cause more High Alphas i think is abit Extensive,
in retrospect will having less health suddenly reduce the amount of High Alphas?

i think people use High Alphas as a Poke Tool, fire all your Weapons then Twist in defense,
Having a High Alpha is a play style that doesnt change depending on the health of your target,
its based on how you Build and Play your Mech, some like Pop-tarting, some Like Brawling Ect,
what this will do is help some one survive a high Alpha more often, and make Crits matter more,


you say as an IS player you are Limited to 35PPFLD Alphas? ok i can say Clan has the same?
and Lasers Spread and with those IS players can get to 57 and Clan players can get to a very Hot 66,
but as i said the Damage Spreads so its unlikely all that Damage will be to 1 Location,

It's possible that increasing structure rates would make the smaller loadout mechs feel even more like peashooters etc etc.

That is not a strong enough argument to make for several reasons, but nonetheless, increasing structure so directly would certainly be considered power creep, if there is need for further distinction it shouldn't matter which way it goes (nerf or buff), but if people feel that STD needs a buff, or that structure in general needs a buff, then that seems symptomatic of powercreep in other areas, buffing it here is counterproductive to those buffs, and could result in further powercreep padding.

[Khobai]

Quote

People have been complaining about high alphas forever so you want to push game even farther towards high alpha?

You cant push it farther towards high alpha. people are already using the highest alphas they can.

[Shifty McSwift]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

You cant push it farther towards high alpha. people are already using the highest alphas they can.

LoL, yeah this is one of the reasons why that argument doesn't really work when taking it in that direction. Ghost heat only really does so much for TTK too, splitting one humungous alphas into two slightly staggered massive volleys still leaves a lot of very quickly dealt damage in play.

But, again, I still have a hard time going in the way of powercreep, which we definitely have had a lot of, I know nerfs are hated but they do become needed with a game like this, whose marketing model is mostly based around new shinies with comparably good/unique capabilities.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 11 July 2017 - 08:19 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Shifty McSwift, on 11 July 2017 - 08:10 PM, said:

It's possible that increasing structure rates would make the smaller loadout mechs feel even more like peashooters etc etc.

That is not a strong enough argument to make for several reasons, but nonetheless, increasing structure so directly would certainly be considered power creep, if there is need for further distinction it shouldn't matter which way it goes (nerf or buff), but if people feel that STD needs a buff, or that structure in general needs a buff, then that seems symptomatic of powercreep in other areas, buffing it here is counterproductive to those buffs, and could result in further powercreep padding.

True but also remember how much Extra Structure those mechs get with the Defense Tree,
a Raven(22StructureLive) with This(44Structure) + Full Defense Tree would have 60Structure,
that would be huge for Lights giving them a Hard Choice, MobilityTree(Speed) Or DefenseTree(Health)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 11 July 2017 - 08:20 PM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Andi Nagasia, on 11 July 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

True but also remember how much Extra Structure those mechs get with the Defense Tree,
a Raven(22StructureLive) with This(44Structure) + Full Defense Tree would have 60Structure,
that would be huge for Lights giving them a Hard Choice, MobilityTree(Speed) Or DefenseTree(Health)

I am remembering those structure and armor increases, it is just one of many examples of powercreep that mostly goes unnoticed because (I guess, I don't know) people don't respond badly to direct positives? And yeah it would be nice for those lighter mechs, whose structures feel like glass at times, but on the other end of the scale you warp the effect of weapons on mechs in combat, how high does an atlas' fully buffed structure rate become? If it becomes higher than its armor, how do you retain the value of high weight costing armor vs the "free" armor that structure provides? And how does that actually play out etc? In a flood of demands for better crit damages? Higher crit based weapon usage rates? Much higher brawl oriented meta? How much more ammo will we need to compensate the increase in TTK vs infinite shot weapons? etc etc.

I really don't know if I am for or against the idea personally, I would have to see it play out, but just in consideration, increasing the amount of time it takes for a light to get his components destroyed also means an increase in time it takes him to kill them, meaning more potential face time. The easier path really is to constrain the potentials of alphas as it has less potential for carry on effects...

But honestly, I think the issue you are getting at is more indicative of a different area of power creep, which is the increase in meta mech speeds, a light vs a linebacker just feels mean to me, even at 150kph vs 100, that is just the most recent example but the idea of most lights is to be able to outrun everything but other lights and fast mediums with relative ease, and not only that, but also outmanoeuvre them in their own twist rates and vs the twist rates of slower mechs, when so many mechs of better loadout potential, much better armor to size ratios can rate comparable in mobility (speed and flexibility).

[GoatHILL]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

You cant push it farther towards high alpha. people are already using the highest alphas they can.

You make any mech that can't carry a high alpha obsolete I still see a good variety of mechs mixed into the games now. But you double structure and you will start seeing fewer mechs being played. I like seeing more than 6 or 8 chassis.

And yes I run very few XL heavies and no XL assaults good players can take 1 look at your loadout and know you are running an XL.