8 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Here's an idea, what if instead of killing people immediately with IS XL side-torso death, it only deals damage inwards likes an ammo explosion on top of an even worse movement and heat dissipation penalty? Similarly what if CXL and LFE was also ammo-explosion-esque?

This means that there's a chance that one could die with a side-torso loss provided that the CT is already damaged, likewise it's also extremely advantageous to XL check that it already weakens the CT, but not so much so that it's an instant kill.

Locust has 12 CT structure right? What if IS-XL ST deals 6 damage inwards per side-torso, but IS LFE deals 4 damage per side-torso for a 20 tonner? But the Commando as a 25-tonner with 16 CT Structure would deal 8 damage/ST for IS-XL, but does 5.3334 damage with LFEs. So on, and so forth till we reach 100 Tons. Basically IS-XL deals 50% CT-structure as internal damage to CT, But LFE does only 33.33%.

POLL

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 February 2018 - 02:23 AM.

[El Bandito]

By inwards you mean damage transfer to the CT internals?

[The6thMessenger]

El Bandito, on 23 February 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

By inwards you mean damage transfer to the CT internals?

Yeah. I mean there's no side torso to deal damage to. Unless you want that.

[Y E O N N E]

Can I mitigate it with CASE?

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 February 2018 - 01:59 AM, said:

Can I mitigate it with CASE?

Hmm, think about the implication. Use case, then IS-XL is a lot trivial.

No i don't think it should be mitigated by case.

[N0ni]

Or keep CXL/LFE as is with no damage transfer and only apply it to IS XLs in addition to the movement/heat penalty of LFEs.

So you would then have:
STDs - no damage/no penalty
CXL/LFE - no damage/movement and heat penalty/death at both ST loss
IS XL - CT internal damage/movement and heat penalty/death at both ST loss (losing one ST having a moderate internal hit to CT to keep the balance of the lesser weight of XLs while not being an instant death sentence).

Just brainstorming. (until the inevitable "ok i'm done with this thread" lol)

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 23 February 2018 - 02:06 AM, said:

Hmm, think about the implication. Use case, then IS-XL is a lot trivial.

No i don't think it should be mitigated by case.

I mean, you would be giving up two more slots and up to a ton of your XL advantage just to mitigate it. It doesn't seem particularly out of line considering how space-constrained IS builds are.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 23 February 2018 - 02:08 AM, said:

I mean, you would be giving up two more slots and up to a ton of your XL advantage just to mitigate it. It doesn't seem particularly out of line considering how space-constrained IS builds are.

Well, if you put it that way, perhaps.

Although considering that there's a lot of tonnage and slots the assaults could spare when they weren't traditionally went with XL, maybe it's not a good place to tread.

For the benefit of the doubt, perhaps we can test this.

[Jackal Noble]

Yep. With this concept, which many won't like, it should absolutely be mitigated or damage halved when case is in place.