Reactive And Reflective Armor
#21
Posted 28 November 2018 - 07:43 PM
#22
Posted 28 November 2018 - 07:48 PM
Shadowomega1, on 28 November 2018 - 06:48 PM, said:
This one I missed, the rest are intentional since they wholly involve mechanics not in the game.
The chances of more armors is almost 0 though, since with resistance types all the weapon impact animations need to be redone so you can tell what you're hitting.
Edited by Nightbird, 28 November 2018 - 07:53 PM.
#23
Posted 28 November 2018 - 08:00 PM
#24
Posted 29 November 2018 - 12:41 AM
Alcom Isst, on 28 November 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:
you only get dicked over if you dont adapt by taking multiples types of weapons
thats the whole point: it forces you to bring rock, paper, and scissors to a fight. Instead of just being able to boat one type of weapon.
anything that weakens boating one type of weapon and encourages mixed weapon types is an improvement over the current state of the game.
although 50% would be a bit ridiculous for damage reduction. 25% would be more reasonable. that way its more of a soft counter than a hard counter.
FRAGTAST1C, on 28 November 2018 - 07:43 PM, said:
people dont use diverse builds currently though. they always boat the same type of weapons.
adding armor types that punish boating would increase diversity by forcing mixed loadouts. you would no longer be able to boat all energy or all autocannons or all missiles. Youd have to mix at least two types of weapons to avoid being soft countered (and at worst it should be a soft counter because hard counters arnt good for game design).
Edited by Khobai, 29 November 2018 - 12:47 AM.
#25
Posted 29 November 2018 - 01:09 AM
Khobai, on 29 November 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:
Yeah man you take a trashtastic mixed loadout. You're bad against regular armor mechs and you're also merely okay against Reflect/React mechs because while half your loadout works the other half is trash and useless.
Best to boat one weapon system. If a mech is weak against you then they die ggclose 100% skill. If a mech's armor counters yours then just ignore them, let someone else with a different system handle it... except I don't want to ignore mechs that sounds really boring and lame.
#26
Posted 29 November 2018 - 01:41 AM
I would use it on LRM boats, cose' there is no drawback to this really.. As a LRM boat, I tend to stick to cover anyway, and most things that rush me come at me with either SRMs or MGs.. so reactive armor would be a major upgrade..
#27
Posted 29 November 2018 - 01:57 AM
#28
Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:01 AM
#29
Posted 29 November 2018 - 02:10 AM
Vellron2005, on 29 November 2018 - 01:41 AM, said:
See you get all excited about the idea of using ref/reac but then you don't think about how it feels for the harassing mech to get screwed over by an armor type, or having to go up against a team with mostly reactive armor in an LRM boat... or maybe you're just apathetic to what your opponent has and just want a giggle when an Assassin comes at you. Or am I mistaken?
#31
Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:43 AM
FupDup, on 28 November 2018 - 06:13 PM, said:
As for melee, MWO can kinda sorta emulate that with increased collision and falling damage. Like, amplify it at least 3-4 times more than the default.
So want collision and falling damage. I know animating melee on to mech would be too hard. But I want to be able to ram guys if I have no weapons or if I jump off the top on Rublite in my Orion I am smashing my legs and falling over.
#32
Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:56 AM
El Bandito, on 28 November 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:
I remember that. FF was just way more bang for your buck, and a safe overall bet. That said, there is something elegant and self-correcting re: overall game meta about reactive and reflective armor. It punishes hyper-specialized builds (and hyper-specialized mechs) that come across their counter, but, at the same token, leaves you extremely vulnerable when faced with the armor's opposite weapon type. If ballistics ever became the meta choice, it could be reigned in with reactive, and with lazvom being so effective it would reign in the odds of seeing those sorts of mechs. It would possibly generate a real reason to diversify loadouts to some extent, since you'd never be sure what sort of armor they'd have.
The biggest problem I'd have with Reactive and Reflective armor at this point is less so about their functionality, and more so about options within techbases. While IS has solid missile and ballistic systems, by and large the reason why Clan mechs pack so many lasers is that, by comparison, the ballistic options are not nearly as practical or reliable. So of course clan mechs tend to pack energy. However, buffing Clan ballistics would pose a risk in the few clan mechs that do it well (IE: MKII-B ) as any slight improvement to their QOL for any other Clan mech would result in the established effective ballistic platforms ramping up in power tremendously.
It's a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Clan ballistics right now, because of it. I'd love to be comfortable taking a single C-UAC10 on mechs, but on anything that can't effectively take 2+ of them, they are too unreliable, and the damage spread is a smidgen much. By comparison, a single IS-UAC10 feels punchy due to reduced shell count, and the jam chance is lower making it more reliable. However, if you had two of those, plus two UAC5 on a MK-II, the mech would definitely be broken.
Edited by Pariah Devalis, 29 November 2018 - 09:00 AM.
#33
Posted 29 November 2018 - 08:56 AM
Alcom Isst, on 29 November 2018 - 01:09 AM, said:
Yeah man you take a trashtastic mixed loadout. You're bad against regular armor mechs and you're also merely okay against Reflect/React mechs because while half your loadout works the other half is trash and useless.
Best to boat one weapon system. If a mech is weak against you then they die ggclose 100% skill. If a mech's armor counters yours then just ignore them, let someone else with a different system handle it... except I don't want to ignore mechs that sounds really boring and lame.
Does this only works for you and your team or did the enemy have the same advantages and disadvantages?
Seems that you are a little to binary?
Your weapons are not useless against some armor, but they do less damag against it but also it do more damage against some other armor.
You dont need to ignor enemys, you need to judge if its needed to fight against an enemy were you do less damage or kill the vulnerable enemys first. Sure it needs some thinking and judging but mwo is a "thikings mans shooter" (at least say said that some years ago).
Different armors would increase diversity and choices and punish boating.
Alcom Isst, on 29 November 2018 - 02:10 AM, said:
Cant the harasser get also some other armor?
LRM boats take lrms and some lasers, as harasser you should know that and adjust your armor type. Thinking!
If lots of enemys take reactive armor, then you should adjust your mech or loadout for the next matches or use your backupweapons more. Thinking!
#34
Posted 29 November 2018 - 09:04 AM
El Bandito, on 28 November 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:
it might be more beneficial in this game. take fp, where you got a lot of clanners with laser vomit, is takes a lot of reflective armor as a result. thus the clanners start using their other weapons, next thing you know you got mixed builds everywhere and the game might actually be more fun.
other modes not so much you end up with the same hodgepodge of mechs and weapons and everyone just runs ff/std armor because you have to deal with a lot of everything.
Edited by LordNothing, 29 November 2018 - 09:05 AM.
#35
Posted 29 November 2018 - 09:32 AM
#36
Posted 29 November 2018 - 10:03 AM
Khobai, on 29 November 2018 - 12:41 AM, said:
you only get dicked over if you dont adapt by taking multiples types of weapons
thats the whole point: it forces you to bring rock, paper, and scissors to a fight. Instead of just being able to boat one type of weapon.
anything that weakens boating one type of weapon and encourages mixed weapon types is an improvement over the current state of the game.
Yeah, those damn munchkin Black Knights and Catapult A1s, how DARE they choose to not equip alternate weapon types on their non-existent alternate hardpoints.
#37
Posted 29 November 2018 - 10:06 AM
FupDup, on 29 November 2018 - 10:03 AM, said:
How dear people make mech that take advantage of there hard points and quirks.
#38
Posted 29 November 2018 - 10:20 AM
SirSmokes, on 29 November 2018 - 10:06 AM, said:
He's not wrong, though. Mechs like the Black Knight, CPTL-A1, SNV-1, etc, don't have a choice in the matter. They must take one type of weapon. If they ever went up against their nemesis armor, they'd effectively be useless against that specific target. 50% damage reduction against someone effectively puts these mechs out of the game. It isn't like boating specific weapon types isn't part of the game, the setting, or the source material.
Of course, they wouldn't be nullified against the entire enemy team. Not everyone will be taking armor suited to stop them, and any omnimech is guaranteed to be just FF or Standard armor, so they'll always be effective against those. But 50% might be a tad much. Maybe if Reactive/Reflective only reduced damage by 25% at the cost of 25% increased damage from antithesis weapons. You'd still be able to hurt someone using that sort of armor, but it wouldn't be as effective. Still, you wouldn't be out of the fight entirely.
#39
Posted 29 November 2018 - 10:57 AM
Pariah Devalis, on 29 November 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:
He's not wrong, though. Mechs like the Black Knight, CPTL-A1, SNV-1, etc, don't have a choice in the matter. They must take one type of weapon. If they ever went up against their nemesis armor, they'd effectively be useless against that specific target. 50% damage reduction against someone effectively puts these mechs out of the game. It isn't like boating specific weapon types isn't part of the game, the setting, or the source material.
Of course, they wouldn't be nullified against the entire enemy team. Not everyone will be taking armor suited to stop them, and any omnimech is guaranteed to be just FF or Standard armor, so they'll always be effective against those. But 50% might be a tad much. Maybe if Reactive/Reflective only reduced damage by 25% at the cost of 25% increased damage from antithesis weapons. You'd still be able to hurt someone using that sort of armor, but it wouldn't be as effective. Still, you wouldn't be out of the fight entirely.
Those are all good points. I not sure if adding them in is a good idea or not.
Edited by SirSmokes, 29 November 2018 - 11:00 AM.
#40
Posted 29 November 2018 - 06:24 PM
Nightbird, on 28 November 2018 - 11:38 AM, said:
Heavy Ferro-Fibrous Armor (3069): 21 slots for 24% higher armor capacity
Laser reflective armor (3080): energy weapons 50% damage, double damage from melee and collision
Reactive armor (3081): missile weapons and arty/air strikes 50% damage (not ballistic as indicated in first post)
Hardened armor (3090): affects everything 50% damage, reduced mech agility, 4 times the armor weight per point to equip
Ballistic-Reinforced Armor (>3131): affects ballistic, missiles, and strikes 50% damage
There's no 'counters' to any of these armors in MWO. Using ballistics against laser reflective armor does not do any additional damage, also melee and armor piercing ammo do not exist in game.
See the problem? Availability date. Major timeline advancement required.
Well I can see PGI turning a blind eye to it after it was developed by DC in 3063.
If reactive was added but still functioned like standard armor towards ballistics then there'd be an outcry of nearly unkillable mechs.
Atlas with full armor reactive vs Fafnir
x1 lbx20 x4 ASRM6 and 2 Hgauss 5 ERML.
Atlas does 91 damage and Fafnir deals only 50 damage.
Atlas already being stronger 1v1 because of it's build the fafnir is a laughing stock
Atlas shoots the left torso and the damage for the fafnir is instantly reduced because of Hgauss explosion from LBX
and fafnir can't fire the ERML without high heat so fafnir that previously had a near same chance to win as Atlas is more likely to lose(unless aimbot or good aim).
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users