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?
1
Should Non Ammo Weapons Be The Fragile Ones?
Started by Shifty McSwift, Aug 06 2017 12:14 AM
26 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 17,839 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 12:56 AM
i wouldnt mind if 'the first weapon to go' on say an atlas, was not the ac20. its certainly the thing everyone aims for first, but that its very easy to crit doesnt help much. then you bring in something like the is lb20, which is a close in finisher that needs to survive the battle till the end to be effective. you cant really do that if it gets critted. smaller weapons i never see get critted at all. it happens once in a blue moon, but its very rare.
then the whole weapon hitpoints complicates the matter. i dont even know how they work. id really have to know that to reccomend something that would work. i assume it works like this: upon hit a d12 roll picks the slot and then some or all of the damage is applied to that slot, if that damage number > the weapon's remaining hitpoints then it dies? i dont know how many crits a big gun like an ac20 can take before its dead. i presume one. weapon hitpoints seem to be determined arbitrarily by pgi. its a thing always being tweaked for balance. if im correct then simply upping the hitpoints for an ac20 wouldnt work, at some point you will just destroy the section long before anything crits out.
problem is each hit represents a new crit roll. if a component takes damage but is not distroyed, a new crit roll bypasses this and applies damage to a new component. what if the crit rolls lock in on a component, then that component will always get hit by follow up shots until its dead. after which a new crit roll takes place and the next part takes damage. then what if we split the damage 50/50 between the component and the structure (both are damaged simultaneously). now we can really start tweaking part hitpoints, like give an ac20 10x the hitpoints of a medium laser. 10x more likely to be hit, 10x the damage. but of course once its locked it it receives damage till its dead. smaller weapons are harder to roll but crit faster. big weapons stay alive longer.
of course i think its one of those situations where mechwarrior is too battletech. i wouldnt mind sub-hitboxes about the gun ports, volume of the box is relative to weapon size. you hit the gun port, direct damage to weapon. you hit the section but not the component, structure. no rng rolls. but that might be too simtech.
then the whole weapon hitpoints complicates the matter. i dont even know how they work. id really have to know that to reccomend something that would work. i assume it works like this: upon hit a d12 roll picks the slot and then some or all of the damage is applied to that slot, if that damage number > the weapon's remaining hitpoints then it dies? i dont know how many crits a big gun like an ac20 can take before its dead. i presume one. weapon hitpoints seem to be determined arbitrarily by pgi. its a thing always being tweaked for balance. if im correct then simply upping the hitpoints for an ac20 wouldnt work, at some point you will just destroy the section long before anything crits out.
problem is each hit represents a new crit roll. if a component takes damage but is not distroyed, a new crit roll bypasses this and applies damage to a new component. what if the crit rolls lock in on a component, then that component will always get hit by follow up shots until its dead. after which a new crit roll takes place and the next part takes damage. then what if we split the damage 50/50 between the component and the structure (both are damaged simultaneously). now we can really start tweaking part hitpoints, like give an ac20 10x the hitpoints of a medium laser. 10x more likely to be hit, 10x the damage. but of course once its locked it it receives damage till its dead. smaller weapons are harder to roll but crit faster. big weapons stay alive longer.
of course i think its one of those situations where mechwarrior is too battletech. i wouldnt mind sub-hitboxes about the gun ports, volume of the box is relative to weapon size. you hit the gun port, direct damage to weapon. you hit the section but not the component, structure. no rng rolls. but that might be too simtech.
#3
-
-
- Big Daddy
- 26,736 posts
Member
- LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.
Posted 06 August 2017 - 03:49 AM
It is good logic. More crit space it takes, more health it should have as balancing factor. Gauss is an exception to the rule.
#4
-
-
- Liquid Metal
- 2,496 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:17 AM
I cant remember when was last time ammo exploded on me.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
Edited by davoodoo, 06 August 2017 - 05:20 AM.
#5
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 1,184 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:36 AM
Fair point, but honestly anyone with any sense is going to try to blow off the parts holding the big weapons ASAP regardless, so it's not going to have a tremendous effect. Especially with the newer clan assaults like the Marauder IIC and Mad Cat MkII, those side torsos are so easy to drill out that it's often actually better to halve them than try to get the CT, and component health never even comes into it.
I don't really seem to suffer from them, but I still get them at a decent rate, especially on my LMG spam 'mechs. I think that (again) it's mostly down to people dying so quickly that ammo explosions often don't even factor into it, especially if they're not dumb enough to pack all of the torsos with ammo.
davoodoo, on 06 August 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:
I cant remember when was last time ammo exploded on me.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
I don't really seem to suffer from them, but I still get them at a decent rate, especially on my LMG spam 'mechs. I think that (again) it's mostly down to people dying so quickly that ammo explosions often don't even factor into it, especially if they're not dumb enough to pack all of the torsos with ammo.
Edited by Alexander of Macedon, 06 August 2017 - 05:38 AM.
#6
-
-
- The Infernal
- 8,881 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:21 AM
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?
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?
Let me ask you a question. Do you find it fun when you don't have any weapons to shoot? I know I don't so stop asking for a nerf that would make the game less fun.
#7
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 05:52 PM
LordNothing, on 06 August 2017 - 12:56 AM, said:
i wouldnt mind if 'the first weapon to go' on say an atlas, was not the ac20. its certainly the thing everyone aims for first, but that its very easy to crit doesnt help much. then you bring in something like the is lb20, which is a close in finisher that needs to survive the battle till the end to be effective. you cant really do that if it gets critted. smaller weapons i never see get critted at all. it happens once in a blue moon, but its very rare.
then the whole weapon hitpoints complicates the matter. i dont even know how they work. id really have to know that to reccomend something that would work. i assume it works like this: upon hit a d12 roll picks the slot and then some or all of the damage is applied to that slot, if that damage number > the weapon's remaining hitpoints then it dies? i dont know how many crits a big gun like an ac20 can take before its dead. i presume one. weapon hitpoints seem to be determined arbitrarily by pgi. its a thing always being tweaked for balance. if im correct then simply upping the hitpoints for an ac20 wouldnt work, at some point you will just destroy the section long before anything crits out.
problem is each hit represents a new crit roll. if a component takes damage but is not distroyed, a new crit roll bypasses this and applies damage to a new component. what if the crit rolls lock in on a component, then that component will always get hit by follow up shots until its dead. after which a new crit roll takes place and the next part takes damage. then what if we split the damage 50/50 between the component and the structure (both are damaged simultaneously). now we can really start tweaking part hitpoints, like give an ac20 10x the hitpoints of a medium laser. 10x more likely to be hit, 10x the damage. but of course once its locked it it receives damage till its dead. smaller weapons are harder to roll but crit faster. big weapons stay alive longer.
of course i think its one of those situations where mechwarrior is too battletech. i wouldnt mind sub-hitboxes about the gun ports, volume of the box is relative to weapon size. you hit the gun port, direct damage to weapon. you hit the section but not the component, structure. no rng rolls. but that might be too simtech.
then the whole weapon hitpoints complicates the matter. i dont even know how they work. id really have to know that to reccomend something that would work. i assume it works like this: upon hit a d12 roll picks the slot and then some or all of the damage is applied to that slot, if that damage number > the weapon's remaining hitpoints then it dies? i dont know how many crits a big gun like an ac20 can take before its dead. i presume one. weapon hitpoints seem to be determined arbitrarily by pgi. its a thing always being tweaked for balance. if im correct then simply upping the hitpoints for an ac20 wouldnt work, at some point you will just destroy the section long before anything crits out.
problem is each hit represents a new crit roll. if a component takes damage but is not distroyed, a new crit roll bypasses this and applies damage to a new component. what if the crit rolls lock in on a component, then that component will always get hit by follow up shots until its dead. after which a new crit roll takes place and the next part takes damage. then what if we split the damage 50/50 between the component and the structure (both are damaged simultaneously). now we can really start tweaking part hitpoints, like give an ac20 10x the hitpoints of a medium laser. 10x more likely to be hit, 10x the damage. but of course once its locked it it receives damage till its dead. smaller weapons are harder to roll but crit faster. big weapons stay alive longer.
of course i think its one of those situations where mechwarrior is too battletech. i wouldnt mind sub-hitboxes about the gun ports, volume of the box is relative to weapon size. you hit the gun port, direct damage to weapon. you hit the section but not the component, structure. no rng rolls. but that might be too simtech.
I think that is pretty much how it works, "rolls a d12" or randomly selects one of 12 slots to be hit more specifically, with the damage being dependent on what kind of weapon is fired, the damage is also not just granted to the weapon or equipment I believe (which would mean more weapons = more health), but that damage is to the structure of the mech, if it is high enough to kill the weapon hit, then the weapon dies, if not it takes the appropriate amount of health loss, but that damage is to the structure of the mech, counting toward damage dealt on structure for a kill or component destroyed.
I could be wrong quite easily here, but that is how it seems to work.
Viktor Drake, on 06 August 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:
Let me ask you a question. Do you find it fun when you don't have any weapons to shoot? I know I don't so stop asking for a nerf that would make the game less fun.
It must be scary living in a world where mere discussion about something sends you into fits of hyperbole and exaggerated fears. It is like trying to shut everyone up from talking at all for fear the king might hear a bad word... C'mon guy, get over it, if you draw issue with the idea just express why, don't attack my ability to express opinion or have discussions. Plus what do you really mean by stop asking? This is just a topical discussion about the ideals when it comes to weapon health I am not really asking for anything.
"It's not fun to lose all your weapons"... Yeah well we have weapon destruction in the game right now and have done for ages, yet how often do all your guns get destroyed before you? Never? Why would you assume that I want that to suddenly happen, or why you expect it would suddenly happen if energy weapons were the most fragile weapons?
#8
-
-
- The Guide
- 23,384 posts
Welcoming Committee
Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:01 PM
davoodoo, on 06 August 2017 - 05:17 AM, said:
I cant remember when was last time ammo exploded on me.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
ammo destructions happen but ammo explosions dont.
but i remember some poor nova dying due to empty hmg ammo bin explosion in head.
Had an ammo explosion happen yesterday. It didn't kill me, but it was in the list of damages. I thought I ran out of ammo.
But in the list of damage, ammo explosion was fourth from the last on the list.
Problem is while in closed beta, ammo explosions had a theatrical number of screen shakes accompanied with "popping sounds" that eventually lead to an explosion... the current game has none of that, instead there's just a particle effect that we can only see on enemy mechs when they get an ammo explosion that looks like a cheap 'puff' of 'fire' similar to what you'd see on an SNES for an 'explosion' which appears and disappears rapidly before they lose a limb.
#9
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:14 PM
Koniving, on 06 August 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:
Had an ammo explosion happen yesterday. It didn't kill me, but it was in the list of damages. I thought I ran out of ammo.
But in the list of damage, ammo explosion was fourth from the last on the list.
Problem is while in closed beta, ammo explosions had a theatrical number of screen shakes accompanied with "popping sounds" that eventually lead to an explosion... the current game has none of that, instead there's just a particle effect that we can only see on enemy mechs when they get an ammo explosion that looks like a cheap 'puff' of 'fire' similar to what you'd see on an SNES for an 'explosion' which appears and disappears rapidly before they lose a limb.
But in the list of damage, ammo explosion was fourth from the last on the list.
Problem is while in closed beta, ammo explosions had a theatrical number of screen shakes accompanied with "popping sounds" that eventually lead to an explosion... the current game has none of that, instead there's just a particle effect that we can only see on enemy mechs when they get an ammo explosion that looks like a cheap 'puff' of 'fire' similar to what you'd see on an SNES for an 'explosion' which appears and disappears rapidly before they lose a limb.
It's the Legend of Zelda animation for when you destroy a rock with the charge move OK???? Jeez, hate on a guy for recycling whydoncha
But yeah agreed, that older buildup effect was much cooler. It would be sweet to see something like that for XL engine torso losses etc. Particularly the 1 ST to die ones, give them a brief period of panic before they explode lol.
Edited by Shifty McSwift, 06 August 2017 - 06:20 PM.
#10
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:38 PM
My thought is that I don't like crits. At all. Crits provide a reward disproportionate to the amount of effort and investment. Nobody gives a damn about internal structure amount if you can mission-kill the target without actually putting it onto the ground. All you need is just enough burst DPS and heat capacity to strip the armor and then sprinkle the target with LMGs to take him out of the fight. And worse, it's random. You can throw a bunch of stuff into your 'Mech to try to improve the odds that the item you want to survive gets missed, but that's still luck.
It doesn't matter to me which weapons are fragile or not, it's all a universal drag.
It doesn't matter to me which weapons are fragile or not, it's all a universal drag.
#11
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:48 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:
My thought is that I don't like crits. At all. Crits provide a reward disproportionate to the amount of effort and investment. Nobody gives a damn about internal structure amount if you can mission-kill the target without actually putting it onto the ground. All you need is just enough burst DPS and heat capacity to strip the armor and then sprinkle the target with LMGs to take him out of the fight. And worse, it's random. You can throw a bunch of stuff into your 'Mech to try to improve the odds that the item you want to survive gets missed, but that's still luck.
It doesn't matter to me which weapons are fragile or not, it's all a universal drag.
It doesn't matter to me which weapons are fragile or not, it's all a universal drag.
Did you note the notion I brought up about the potential for some weapon placements (or specific hardpoints) to be considered outside of the components armor, particularly when it comes to lots of smaller energy weapons slotted into components that are often purposely not targeted, i.e. arms?
The discussion is based on the notion of which weapons are most fragile and why, but you can get as open on the topic of weapon health in a general sense if you want. I am not a big fan of RNG systems at all myself either and like to see it minimised in a game like this (as it can't really be fully eliminated, just minimise its usage wherever possible), is that similar to your reasoning for feeling crits reward disproportionately? Or is it more about how unimportant the whole system is when the game is so often "open CT, then destroy CT for win"?
#12
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:17 PM
Shifty McSwift, on 06 August 2017 - 06:48 PM, said:
Did you note the notion I brought up about the potential for some weapon placements (or specific hardpoints) to be considered outside of the components armor, particularly when it comes to lots of smaller energy weapons slotted into components that are often purposely not targeted, i.e. arms?
I saw it, but I simply don't want them at all. I have that little love for the mechanic; my opinion is that if you want to disarm a 'Mech, you destroy that whole component. Period. And, IMHO, there are plenty of reasons to go for a maim rather than a straight kill.
Quote
The discussion is based on the notion of which weapons are most fragile and why, but you can get as open on the topic of weapon health in a general sense if you want. I am not a big fan of RNG systems at all myself either and like to see it minimised in a game like this (as it can't really be fully eliminated, just minimise its usage wherever possible), is that similar to your reasoning for feeling crits reward disproportionately? Or is it more about how unimportant the whole system is when the game is so often "open CT, then destroy CT for win"?
My reasoning is that It takes very little firepower and very little technical skill to cause game-ending damage with the crit system. Take even a pair of LMG and you can blow out all the weapons on your target as soon as you open him up. I've had it happen to me; a Cyclops with just two pushed on my position; he was open CT and I was open all torsos in a Warhammer, but he was close to dead before he splattered some LMG rounds across my 'Mech and took out both UAC/10 and both LPPC. It was stupid.
I've also been on the giving end, detonating Gauss with LMG. That's one hilariously easy torso removal if that's where it was mounted, and if it's an IS 'Mech without CASE...RIP.
None of this really changes even if crits become a deterministic system; we're still rewarding tiny, inexpensive, easy-to-use guns with a huge instantaneous impact when it happens.
#13
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 1,053 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:29 PM
Is there a balance issue between energy weapons and the rest that warrants such a huge change?
#14
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:36 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:
I saw it, but I simply don't want them at all. I have that little love for the mechanic; my opinion is that if you want to disarm a 'Mech, you destroy that whole component. Period. And, IMHO, there are plenty of reasons to go for a maim rather than a straight kill.
Ah, OK, cheers for clarifying. That's a perfectly valid opinion to have about it.
Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:
My reasoning is that It takes very little firepower and very little technical skill to cause game-ending damage with the crit system. Take even a pair of LMG and you can blow out all the weapons on your target as soon as you open him up. I've had it happen to me; a Cyclops with just two pushed on my position; he was open CT and I was open all torsos in a Warhammer, but he was close to dead before he splattered some LMG rounds across my 'Mech and took out both UAC/10 and both LPPC. It was stupid.
I've also been on the giving end, detonating Gauss with LMG. That's one hilariously easy torso removal if that's where it was mounted, and if it's an IS 'Mech without CASE...RIP.
None of this really changes even if crits become a deterministic system; we're still rewarding tiny, inexpensive, easy-to-use guns with a huge instantaneous impact when it happens.
I've also been on the giving end, detonating Gauss with LMG. That's one hilariously easy torso removal if that's where it was mounted, and if it's an IS 'Mech without CASE...RIP.
None of this really changes even if crits become a deterministic system; we're still rewarding tiny, inexpensive, easy-to-use guns with a huge instantaneous impact when it happens.
That really does sound like an MG problem, one that I guess I just have not seen much of, in my main mech I just have the one big gun in the torso, and it does die pretty frequently after that section gets opened, but with so many weapons in my arms, and with the rarity of them ever really being targeted (being hit is one thing, with twisting, but given an option between CT or ST or arm, no one chooses arm), at worst, in very rare games I lose an arm weapon.
It is certainly a good point to make that torso guns in particular tke much more of a guaranteed beating due to their position alone. Perhaps torso mounted weapons could be significantly tougher? I know your position is just dump/ignore the crit system particularly on weapons now, but honestly it does sound like that issue you have is more based around that kind of "crit seeking" weaponry and torso mounted guns being very vulnerable.
#15
-
-
- Little Helper
- 4,731 posts
Member
- LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL
Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:38 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:
I saw it, but I simply don't want them at all. I have that little love for the mechanic; my opinion is that if you want to disarm a 'Mech, you destroy that whole component. Period. And, IMHO, there are plenty of reasons to go for a maim rather than a straight kill.
My reasoning is that It takes very little firepower and very little technical skill to cause game-ending damage with the crit system. Take even a pair of LMG and you can blow out all the weapons on your target as soon as you open him up. I've had it happen to me; a Cyclops with just two pushed on my position; he was open CT and I was open all torsos in a Warhammer, but he was close to dead before he splattered some LMG rounds across my 'Mech and took out both UAC/10 and both LPPC. It was stupid.
I've also been on the giving end, detonating Gauss with LMG. That's one hilariously easy torso removal if that's where it was mounted, and if it's an IS 'Mech without CASE...RIP.
None of this really changes even if crits become a deterministic system; we're still rewarding tiny, inexpensive, easy-to-use guns with a huge instantaneous impact when it happens.
There wouldn't be any distinction between armor and structure if there were no crits.
#16
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 07:45 PM
mike29tw, on 06 August 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:
Is there a balance issue between energy weapons and the rest that warrants such a huge change?
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.
#17
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:14 PM
Pjwned, on 06 August 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:
There wouldn't be any distinction between armor and structure if there were no crits.
And?
#18
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:34 PM
Yeonne Greene, on 06 August 2017 - 08:14 PM, said:
And?
Well, he is forgetting that there are other internals that can be hit (could be removed too) and the bonus damage that can be dealt on a crit, which again could also be removed, I don't actually feel strongly enough toward crit systems to defend them in any way lol.
But Yeonne do you really think they will dump crits entirely? Even if you get what you want with the removal of equipment/weapon crits they would probably just make it all about structure damage crits instead, which IMO is worse, at least with diversity there is some dynamism to the mechanic. Perhaps there are other things that could be used to stress critical damage before destruction even? Rather than just advocating a pure dump lol, I would kind of love it, but very much doubt the effectiveness of such lobbying.
#19
-
-
- 2,889 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:45 PM
For example what if weapon destruction meant different things for different weapon classes, with that same notion of balancing infinite ammo vs slotted ammo, energy weapons could be the only guns fully disabled by being destroyed, or even have effects like exploding for damage themselves, whereas ballistics/missiles could potentially still function when "destroyed", with chances for jamming or somesuch (with their actual ammo being the dangerous target).
Or that idea imposed onto arm weapons vs torso weapons, with arm weapons prone to being truly disabled and torso mounted guns "surviving" the weapon death with some adverse effects.
IDK like I said, probably has more merit as an argument for diversifying crits further rather than dumping, or to change the stats of the crits themselves, and also like I said, mostly just shooting the breeze as to peoples thoughts on it.
Or that idea imposed onto arm weapons vs torso weapons, with arm weapons prone to being truly disabled and torso mounted guns "surviving" the weapon death with some adverse effects.
IDK like I said, probably has more merit as an argument for diversifying crits further rather than dumping, or to change the stats of the crits themselves, and also like I said, mostly just shooting the breeze as to peoples thoughts on it.
Edited by Shifty McSwift, 06 August 2017 - 08:49 PM.
#20
-
-
- The Nimble
- 16,810 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2017 - 08:59 PM
Shifty McSwift, on 06 August 2017 - 08:34 PM, said:
Well, he is forgetting that there are other internals that can be hit (could be removed too) and the bonus damage that can be dealt on a crit, which again could also be removed, I don't actually feel strongly enough toward crit systems to defend them in any way lol.
But Yeonne do you really think they will dump crits entirely? Even if you get what you want with the removal of equipment/weapon crits they would probably just make it all about structure damage crits instead, which IMO is worse, at least with diversity there is some dynamism to the mechanic. Perhaps there are other things that could be used to stress critical damage before destruction even? Rather than just advocating a pure dump lol, I would kind of love it, but very much doubt the effectiveness of such lobbying.
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.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
