26 replies to this topic

[Shifty McSwift]

Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

I have exactly zero expectation that they will dump crits. But, the thread was open to thoughts, so there they are. At most, the mechanic adds a random "OOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" factor to the game, which I guess can be exciting, but when it happens to you and you know you were in a good position to continue carrying and you know you lost because you got crit and your team are helpless seals without your continued contribution...not fun.

TBQH, I would just rather they double the health of every piece of equipment in the game. That would be enough for me.

Sure like I said it is about shooting the breeze and I wouldn't shed a tear if crits vanished suddenly one night, just asking you personally there, thanks for the input overall, keep it up guys

[Pjwned]

Shifty McSwift, on 06 August 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well to me the idea that ammo not only adds weight but becomes vulnerable to destruction (in some cases dealing extra damage), versus a gun with infinite ammo having none of those concerns is certainly a point of balancing discussion that should come into it right? My initial feelings/logic toward the topic were that it makes sense for the balancing for infinite ammo weapons to be more fragile for that reasoning specifically. But to be entirely honest I don't know all the exact numbers, this isn't a suggestion about change at all, it is a discussion about the ideals, hence why it is in the GD section.

I'm not forgetting that, unless the idea would be to make only weapons immune to crits and have everything else still be fair game to be destroyed, which would be dumb.

Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:

And?

Just making sure you understand how much it would be dumbing down the game.

Why not just give mechs 1 single health pool too while we're at it? I don't like losing quickly with armor left over on other parts of my mech when I stare at the enemy for a minute straight and they just blow out my center torso, so the game should change to meet my demands; it would fix the problem of convergence being unbalanced too so let's do it.

[Shifty McSwift]

Pjwned, on 06 August 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

I'm not forgetting that, unless the idea would be to make only weapons immune to crits and have everything else still be fair game to be destroyed, which would be dumb.



Just making sure you understand how much it would be dumbing down the game.

Why not just give mechs 1 single health pool too while we're at it? I don't like losing quickly with armor left over on other parts of my mech when I stare at the enemy for a minute straight and they just blow out my center torso, so the game should change to meet my demands; it would fix the problem of convergence being unbalanced too so let's do it.

Careful of slippery slope logical fallacies

It's not a case of who is right or wrong or what idea is better, the point wasn't to argue down anyone's position, sorry if I made is seem that way by asking, but don't get bogged down in arguing the exact theoretics too much, everyone is free to have their views on it, even if they aren't lobbying for any specific change too. Itsaulgoodman.

[Y E O N N E]

Pjwned, on 06 August 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Just making sure you understand how much it would be dumbing down the game.

Why not just give mechs 1 single health pool too while we're at it? I don't like losing quickly with armor left over on other parts of my mech when I stare at the enemy for a minute straight and they just blow out my center torso, so the game should change to meet my demands; it would fix the problem of convergence being unbalanced too so let's do it.

It dumbs down exactly nothing. You still have multiple components to keep intact and you still have incentive to do so. If anything, keeping the crits is dumbing it down because you just mission kill the 'Mech without actually killing it, also making the entire concept of internal structure pointless. Yes, crit all the stuff in that section...might as well have just destroyed it entirely.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 07 August 2017 - 04:33 AM.

[Paigan]

Shifty McSwift, on 06 August 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

Just within the context of balancing, with ballistic and missile ammo being somewhat vulnerable to explosions, and with the inherent benefit of infinite energy ammo, perhaps lasers and other energy weapons should be the more fragile of the weapon choices?

By fragile I mean more prone to being destroyed quicker by virtue of having less health and/or possibly extra penalties like having them targetable outside of armor in certain positions.

It makes sense in many ways too, but that is kind of beside the point, the main idea is in the notion of weapon health and which are the most fragile weapons, and how fragile they are, with the current archetype of fragility being the gauss rifle. I am not necessarily advocating a buff to gauss health either just shooting the breeze thinking about the ideals behind weapon health etc.

What are your thoughts on this?

As someone who loves lasers and despises of ammo weapons ...

... let me just tell you ...


... wait for it ...


... that I think you're right. .



Edit:
But, uhm, don't we have that already?
Compare the notorious AC20 to the super-slim CERLL:
14 tons (+Ammo) with 25 HP vs. 4 tons with 6 HP.
If you say weight-wise, one AC20 equals 4 CERLLs, it's something like 25 HP vs 24 HP.
Meaning one ERLL is already pretty vulnerable compared to an AC20.

Maybe it could be further bumbed apart to something like 30 vs 5, but you will still lose the AC20 pretty quickly and the tiny 1-slot CERLL will still sit there in the CT or Head and chuckle throughout the match.

Edited by Paigan, 07 August 2017 - 04:42 AM.

[Pjwned]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 August 2017 - 04:33 AM, said:

It dumbs down exactly nothing. You still have multiple components to keep intact and you still have incentive to do so. If anything, keeping the crits is dumbing it down because you just mission kill the 'Mech without actually killing it, also making the entire concept of internal structure pointless. Yes, crit all the stuff in that section...might as well have just destroyed it entirely.

The whole reason that there's a distinction between armor and structure is because crits become a possibility when armor is gone, so that's just completely wrong because structure might as well just be more armor otherwise, and it's only as much of a problem as you say when you (somehow) manage to get all of your weapons destroyed before losing the whole mech.

If anything, crit seeking weapons (especially LBX cannons) should shred up equipment even more, and more to the original point the lightweight & small energy weapons should have particularly low equipment health while the missiles & ballistics can be a bit more durable but still quite susceptible to sustained MG/LBX fire or a big burst from a bigger LBX cannon.

[Pjwned]

Paigan, on 07 August 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

Edit:
But, uhm, don't we have that already?
Compare the notorious AC20 to the super-slim CERLL:
14 tons (+Ammo) with 25 HP vs. 4 tons with 6 HP.
If you say weight-wise, one AC20 equals 4 CERLLs, it's something like 25 HP vs 24 HP.
Meaning one ERLL is already pretty vulnerable compared to an AC20.

Not a particularly good comparison when it's 1 extreme vs. the other extreme when the average tells quite a different story, and on top of that Clan equipment has lower equipment health.

We still have stupid **** like small lasers with 7.5 HP while light PPCs only have 5 HP for some asinine reason; the numbers are about right except they're in the wrong place.

Quote

Maybe it could be further bumbed apart to something like 30 vs 5, but you will still lose the AC20 pretty quickly and the tiny 1-slot CERLL will still sit there in the CT or Head and chuckle throughout the match.

That's partly because critical hit mechanics are currently garbage and need to be changed, and by changed I don't mean removed.

Edited by Pjwned, 07 August 2017 - 11:05 AM.