50 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Armored Yokai, on 29 November 2018 - 06:24 PM, said:

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).

The Faffy would be doing 75 damage per salvo within its optimal range, not 50. Ballistic weapons are not affected by Reactive Armor.

[Shadowomega1]

FupDup, on 29 November 2018 - 06:33 PM, said:

The Faffy would be doing 75 damage per salvo within its optimal range, not 50. Ballistic weapons are not affected by Reactive Armor.

Was reported to work that way in MW4 by the manual as the down sides to the armor (ie reactive armor could be crit causing the all the armor in that section to blow off, and no melee damage bonus against reflective oh and no through armor crits/ap ammo types) were not coded into MW4.

Edited by Shadowomega1, 29 November 2018 - 06:42 PM.

[Armored Yokai]

FupDup, on 29 November 2018 - 06:33 PM, said:

The Faffy would be doing 75 damage per salvo within its optimal range, not 50. Ballistic weapons are not affected by Reactive Armor.

ECM functions like AECM and we have no arty weapons other than ezstrikes
so it should work out like it.

[FupDup]

Shadowomega1, on 29 November 2018 - 06:40 PM, said:

Was reported to work that way in MW4 by the manual as the down sides to the armor (ie reactive armor could be crit causing the all the armor in that section to blow off, and no melee damage bonus against reflective.)

MW4 took a lot of liberties.

[Shadowomega1]

FupDup, on 29 November 2018 - 06:41 PM, said:

MW4 took a lot of liberties.

So does MWO, and many other games that go from table top to games of the electronic media. All in the name of balance due to rules not properly translating, player skill in a real time environment, or the lack of coding skills/tech limitations to bring in a more complex system. In this case through natural armor crits, ammo switching, ammo with through armor crit chance, punching, kicking, proper collision damage, knock down, proper Death from Above damage. Need I go on?

[FupDup]

Shadowomega1, on 29 November 2018 - 06:53 PM, said:

So does MWO, and many other games that go from table top to games of the electronic media. All in the name of balance due to rules not properly translating, player skill in a real time environment, or the lack of coding skills/tech limitations to bring in a more complex system. In this case through natural armor crits, ammo switching, ammo with through armor crit chance, punching, kicking, proper collision damage, knock down, proper Death from Above damage. Need I go on?

I was not saying whether or not liberties are good or bad.

For this specific question I don't see any positive benefit to making Reactive armor work against ballistics and missiles at the same time, if anything that could easily be overpowered unless the damage resistance values were pretty low.

As for MWO, the liberties it has taken are fewer in number than MW4's and also most of ours are due to coding/engine limitations rather than conscious design choices.

Edited by FupDup, 29 November 2018 - 06:58 PM.

[Shadowomega1]

If they use the TT values for Reactive vs Ballistics and Missiles it would be 50%, same goes for Reflective armor 50% vs energy.; Ferro-Lamellor armor is 20% reduction, Harden Armor 33% reduction. Some pretty hefty damage reductions in those armors.

As for MW4 I did forget two other liberties they took. They wanted to dumb the game down for a wider audience, and also try and balance out what some people thought was bad in MW3's Mech lab, while try to have weapons be fired by proper weapon locations. IE Mass boating, while making other mechs more interesting to use. In MW3 what was the difference between 2 75 ton clan mechs? 3d model/hitbox that was it.

[Anjian]

El Bandito, on 28 November 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Thing is, we had Reflective and Reactive armor in MW4 and in its multiplayer mode most people still used FF armor over them.

If I remember, you took penalties for using these armors, namely, increased damage for the weapons they are not meant to protect against. Namely its a simple RPS scheme. This makes FF the middle ground and the most balanced.

Edited by Anjian, 29 November 2018 - 08:45 PM.

[Khobai]

Alcom Isst, on 29 November 2018 - 01:09 AM, said:

Yeah man you take a trashtastic mixed loadout.

mixed loadouts wouldnt be trashtastic anymore if boating was heavily countered by damage reduction. thats kindve the whole point.

if all youre running are lasers and someone has reflective armor youre going to suffer a devastating -25% damage reduction.

but if you have a mixed loadout of lasers and autocannons your autocannons can still do full damage to someone with reflective armor.

so a mixed loadout wouldnt be bad. it would actually be better than boating.

Anjian, on 29 November 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

If I remember, you took penalties for using these armors, namely, increased damage for the weapons they are not meant to protect against. Namely its a simple RPS scheme. This makes FF the middle ground and the most balanced.

nah that would be awful. special armor types dont need extra penalties. the fact they take up crit slots is penalty enough.

And 50% damage reduction is absurd. 25% would be way more reasonable. 25% damage reduction with no extra penalties would be fine.

FupDup, on 29 November 2018 - 06:56 PM, said:

For this specific question I don't see any positive benefit to making Reactive armor work against ballistics and missiles at the same time

reactive armor should only work vs ballistics. missiles already have dozens of counters. no armor type needs to counter missiles more. its only energy and ballistic weapons that need more counters. making missiles any worse would make them entirely unplayable.

Edited by Khobai, 30 November 2018 - 02:59 AM.

[Shadowomega1]

Khobai, on 30 November 2018 - 02:48 AM, said:

mixed loadouts wouldnt be trashtastic anymore if boating was heavily countered by damage reduction. thats kindve the whole point.

if all youre running are lasers and someone has reflective armor youre going to suffer a devastating -25% damage reduction.

but if you have a mixed loadout of lasers and autocannons your autocannons can still do full damage to someone with reflective armor.

so a mixed loadout wouldnt be bad. it would actually be better than boating.



nah that would be awful. special armor types dont need extra penalties. the fact they take up crit slots is penalty enough.

And 50% damage reduction is absurd. 25% would be way more reasonable. 25% damage reduction with no extra penalties would be fine.



reactive armor should only work vs ballistics. missiles already have dozens of counters. no armor type needs to counter missiles more. its only energy and ballistic weapons that need more counters. making missiles any worse would make them entirely unplayable.

Khobai, FF gives more armor per ton then standard and takes up 14 IS, 7 clan slots (IS TT FF is around 18 points per ton, clan TT around 19 points per ton, while standard is 16 points per ton)

Reactive and reflective give 16 points per ton while taking the same space as FF, giving the effective health per ton vs what it is designed to protect against 24 points per ton.

[Prototelis]

Reactive armor is pointless for your average lrmboat.

I'd still beat the brakes off of them if you're isolated because 2 cerml or isml are not a legitimate threat to any light mech that isn't face hugging.