51 replies to this topic

[xRaeder]

Bilbo, on 31 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Well then we are on the same page. xReader was originally speaking of bonuses, however.

I originally meant that the right torso would have a maximum of say 58 pts. It wouldn't start at that.

[shintakie]

They've stated before that eventually they plan to add small bonuses/weaknesses to certain chassis to give them a bit of flavor. The first one they ever did that with was the YLW where it has a faster torso twist than other mechs. The next was the Stalker that has a truck ton of weapon hardpoints, but a tiny torso twist radius.

Its not too much of a stretch to think they might add extra armor to specific areas of certain mechs as well. They'd probably lower potential armor in other areas to counteract that and keep it balanced.

Edited by shintakie, 31 December 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Sir Trent Howell]

It's not a bad idea. The difference between TT and MWO is that the hit locations in TT are random, MWO is not. Hence in TT your vulnerable areas are more protected by chance. This was also the problem with MW4 when you could have pinpoint accuracy at 1000 meters.

[QuantumButler]

shintakie, on 31 December 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

They've stated before that eventually they plan to add small bonuses/weaknesses to certain chassis to give them a bit of flavor. The first one they ever did that with was the YLW where it has a faster torso twist than other mechs. The next was the Stalker that has a truck ton of weapon hardpoints, but a tiny torso twist radius.

Its not too much of a stretch to think they might add extra armor to specific areas of certain mechs as well. They'd probably lower potential armor in other areas to counteract that and keep it balanced.

This is exactly what we're advocating with the lower potential armor in other areas thing.

I imagine the armor total thing would only be present on the Hunchie, Centurion, and maybe the dragon.

Edited by QuantumButler, 31 December 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Merky Merc]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I've already posted why its a good idea. If you want to post here it is in your court to tell me why I'm wrong. Stop trolling my thread or I will report it as such.

Fine grumpadump, the fact that all the firepower in the chassis you mentioned is in one spot is what allows the Hunchback to be a superior laserboat and it allows the centurion to do jam bigger engines inside of it while carrying firepower that matches that of some heavies. As others have mentioned, weight comes into consideration. Where is this extra armor coming from and at what expense is it obtained. There's the consideration that 10 points of armor is not going to suddenly make people not rip the cent's right arm off nor are they going to stop aiming at the rather large hump of the hunchback.

If you said something along the lines of reducing the size of these 2 mechs models, then I would agree. Centurions are ridiculously oversized for their weight it seems and I suspect Hunchbacks could be a bit slimmer.

[Rogallaig]

Hmnn... Don't mean to thread-jack, but...

Instead of extra armor, how about the devs granting bonus CBills to little-used mech chassis? The bonus/multiplier could change weekly depending on the numbers of each class of mech played the previous week. The ideal % for each weight class would be a static (25/25/25/25 or 30/30/25/15 or whatever), and any deviation (over or under) would be used to modify CBill payout on conclusion of matches. You could then further tweak the multiplier by % of specific chassis for each weight class; so if too many people are running around in RVN-3L mechs, they get less CBill payout on average when compared to someone running the rarer COM-1D. This might give some people in need of cash the incentive to use that little-used mech sitting in their hanger.

You're right that mediums are underplayed. I've mastered 3 CN9 chassis myself and can attest to the lonely life of a medium pilot.

[Throat Punch]

The problem with this idea is if you add X amount of armor to Y location you have changed the weight of the 'mech. That extra bonus armor cannot just weigh zero because it causes and imbalance in the game play. It starts the slippery slope of "Well if the Wasp XX can get magic weightless armor as a bonus, I want magic weightless extra ammo for Phoenix Hawk YY for its bonus, or if he gets weightless extra ammo, i think Battlemaster ZZ should get magic heat-less large pulse lasers for its bonus." Bonuses need to be something that doesn't change the actual design intentions of the 'Mech or change it drastically (and yes adding magic weightless armor is a drastic change).

[p00k]

what about the cataphract? the 3d you lose 2 ballistics and 2 energies, and are left with just 2 energy slots, if someone takes the RT. the 1x you lose 3 energies 1 ballistic, and left again with just 2 energy slots.

and who cares about having your firepower in an unfavorable hitbox? what about your life? should catapults get to put extra armor on their cockpit because it's a bigger cockpit?

or hell, if we're talking about being able to remove armor from elsewhere, i'll drop my atlas's legs to 65, drop the arms to say, 60, and put even more armor in my torsos!

or k2's, lets strip the arms down to nothing. i'm sure i can find an extra place on the torsos for 80 MORE POINTS OF ARMOR. 100 armor for each side torso? good luck blowing off gauss rifles now

or light mechs, let me drop some of that cockpit armor and cram it in my legs

etc etc.

Edited by p00k, 31 December 2012 - 01:16 PM.

[xRaeder]

Merky Merc, on 31 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Fine grumpadump, the fact that all the firepower in the chassis you mentioned is in one spot is what allows the Hunchback to be a superior laserboat and it allows the centurion to do jam bigger engines inside of it while carrying firepower that matches that of some heavies. As others have mentioned, weight comes into consideration. Where is this extra armor coming from and at what expense is it obtained. There's the consideration that 10 points of armor is not going to suddenly make people not rip the cent's right arm off nor are they going to stop aiming at the rather large hump of the hunchback.

If you said something along the lines of reducing the size of these 2 mechs models, then I would agree. Centurions are ridiculously oversized for their weight it seems and I suspect Hunchbacks could be a bit slimmer.

The armor is coming from other locations... or with my build I could choose to sacrifice a small laser for the extra armor. K2 pilots routinely strip armor from the arms and Atlas pilots from the legs. The same is being asked for here.

[GioAvanti]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

I've already posted why its a good idea. If you want to post here it is in your court to tell me why I'm wrong. Stop trolling my thread or I will report it as such.

Oh no he'll report it!

Seriously? Its a bad idea because a lot of people do fine in centurions and hunchbacks......I'm ranking up a centurion right now. If you start messing around too much with the game this is based on..... what's the point?

[xRaeder]

Okay I think people are misunderstanding what I am asking for. I am asking for Mechs that have a lot of their weapons in certain locations to have higher POTENTIAL armor values in that location. I'm not asking that they get that for free.

[GioAvanti]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

The armor is coming from other locations... or with my build I could choose to sacrifice a small laser for the extra armor. K2 pilots routinely strip armor from the arms and Atlas pilots from the legs. The same is being asked for here.

No its not the same thing......the same thing would be a K2 pilot asking for EXTRA armor on the side torsos after he removed it from his arms...

[QuantumButler]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Okay I think people are misunderstanding what I am asking for. I am asking for Mechs that have a lot of their weapons in certain locations to have higher POTENTIAL armor values in that location. I'm not asking that they get that for free.

Reading comprehension is hard man.

[Throat Punch]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Okay I think people are misunderstanding what I am asking for. I am asking for Mechs that have a lot of their weapons in certain locations to have higher POTENTIAL armor values in that location. I'm not asking that they get that for free.

So your asking for that certain arm/torso locations to be bigger, thus more able to accommodate armor? Because again that armor has to be applied to the mech somewhere. That's what the armor values represent, the amount of armor a location can accommodate.

Edited by Morsdraco, 31 December 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Bagheera]

There's no need for this sort of change. They already have in mind tweaks (ala missle doors, YLW torso-twist stats, etc) that are allegedly in the pipe for all chassis. Let's see what they have in mind.

Edited by Bagheera, 31 December 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[GioAvanti]

xRaeder, on 31 December 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Okay I think people are misunderstanding what I am asking for. I am asking for Mechs that have a lot of their weapons in certain locations to have higher POTENTIAL armor values in that location. I'm not asking that they get that for free.

Better off asking for the hunch xp stuff to allow the pilot to reinforce after mastering.

[shintakie]

Bagheera, on 31 December 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

There's no need for this sort of change. They already have in mind tweaks (ala missle doors, YLW torso-twist stats, etc) that are allegedly in the pipe for all chassis. Let's see what they have in mind.

But this change would fall right in line with somethin like YLW torso twist and Stalker extra hardpoints though.

[p00k]

GioAvanti, on 31 December 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

No its not the same thing......the same thing would be a K2 pilot asking for EXTRA armor on the side torsos after he removed it from his arms...

this. i'd love to have 100 armor to spread on each side torso after stripping the arms down to nothing. i'll strip the legs a bit too, not much, maybe 8 from each leg, to give my cockpit 34 armor instead of 18

or maybe on my ddc, i'll drop the mlas on each arm, strip the arms, strip the legs down say 65. 174 more armor to put on my torsos, and i'll just rely on 2 ballistics and 3 missile slots. totally worth it

[QuantumButler]

p00k, on 31 December 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

this. i'd love to have 100 armor to spread on each side torso after stripping the arms down to nothing. i'll strip the legs a bit too, not much, maybe 8 from each leg, to give my cockpit 34 armor instead of 18

or maybe on my ddc, i'll drop the mlas on each arm, strip the arms, strip the legs down say 65. 174 more armor to put on my torsos, and i'll just rely on 2 ballistics and 3 missile slots. totally worth it

nothing's wrong with this at all, more customization is good.

[Kousagi]

As far as i know, PGI has made mention of adding bonus to mechs, but they will not be game breaking, or pigeon hole you in to one mech setup.

Though your argument about the hunchback losing a lot of weapons by losing a side torso happens to every mech pretty much. The only mechs that don't lose 50% of their weapons due to side torso destruction is mechs with weapons in their CT/Heat, and even then they only hold a few weaker weapons.

The reason the hunchies hunch gets blown off so much is cause its a easy target, plus people always puts their big gun there. That would hold true for any mech that does that. Its the same with the Atlas getting its ballistic/Missile side torso blown off a lot when it has lots of ballistics/missiles. Dragon/Cent getting their ballistic arms shot off, Cat's being de-eared, and so on. Every mech loses lots of weapons when their main weapon holding section gets focused.

Edited by Kousagi, 31 December 2012 - 01:30 PM.