23 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordNothing, on 21 July 2022 - 05:44 PM, said:

requiring 60 ppc damage to discharge does nothing for boating, as that is more than any one mech can deliver without cooking off their own mech. that would require a full alpha from 4 snppcs/cerppcs/hppc or 6 ppc/erppc or 11 lppcs, well above the gh limits for a single mech (still possible, but risky). you would need at least 2 boats to lock the system out for a cooldown and recharge.

in case where the system is not fully discharged, you would have a short delay between the last hit and the recharge cycle. so taking it part way down and keeping it under fire to keep it from entering its recharge cycle is the best way to defeat it. a single mech could pull it off (without overheat) with chain fire. even then you would need a second mech to capitalize on the dropped shield as the first mech would likely be too hot at the time.

So the issue with this is that it is similar to AMS which is honestly why I like reflective over blue shield, because it is a system that can be overwhelmed. IDK, part of it just feels odd to specifically focus on just PPCs, but also such that they can be spammed enough to disable the damage reduction. It is different in that the damage reduction isn't dependent on how many PPCs it encounters but still.

LordNothing, on 21 July 2022 - 05:52 PM, said:

you could take one or the other if you need more firepower. the point is you can add extra survivability but it comes at a cost.

Sure, but just to counter a specific loadout? That seems suspiciously like trying to fix an issue the wrong way. Treating the symptom instead of the cause

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 July 2022 - 06:04 PM.

[MyriadDigits]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 July 2022 - 06:03 PM, said:

Sure, but just to counter a specific loadout? That seems suspiciously like trying to fix an issue the wrong way. Treating the symptom instead of the cause

This sums up my feelings of Blue Shield and reactive/reflective armor tbh.


And to LordNothing, the proposal you started this thread on is just a really bad approach. If you make a weapon strong because you added a counter, all you've done is add a mandatory slot/tonnage tax.

[Glaive-]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 July 2022 - 05:47 PM, said:

In TT it takes up space (10 crits I believe?) and in MW4 it had lower points per ton (so it was heavier to mount the same level of protection). For Clans the space is less of a concern, but for IS mechs that could mean giving up Endo Steel which is a pretty significant weight cost. So functionally maybe not any downsides but there are definitely downsides otherwise why run any other armor?

Well thanks to the 10 crit cost and no weight benefits like FF, I think it would actually be decently balanced in that you wouldn't always want to take it, but there would be a place for it.

I wasn't trying to say it would be OP, but that it wouldn't be useless like some people were saying (as in "why take it when you never know if you will take loads of ballistic damage and get obliterated").


Now from a pure-gameplay perspective I can see it being irritating to play against, so I'm not sure if it would be a great addition in the end. If you are in an all-energy mech and most of your opposition has reflective, you are pretty much done. Granted, AMS spam does the same thing to missiles, but that's not as severe of an issue, arguably.

Edited by Glaive-, 22 July 2022 - 09:16 AM.

[Ekson Valdez]

This thread has been moved to Feature Suggestions