18 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Hey folks.

forword

You already know, that the side torsos of some BattleMechs are a easy target - so crippling or even killing this Mech is just too easy:
That would be: Hunchback, Atlas, Stalker, Catapract.

As you should know the values for this armor protection - was taken from the rule set of the board game and multiplied by factor 2.

Well why it is absolute necessary in TT to up armor your legs (because a Mech without leg - is as good as dead) in MWO with pin point accuracy - legs are often a harder target - and it doesn't cripple your foe - with the same ammount of firepower you may have been able to cut through his torso.


current system

So i think its time to rethink the armor system. Following suggestion could be a good start:

We have actual one limit. The maximum armor of a Mech in a location is the doubled value of its internal structure.
So the Hunchback's side torsos for example has internals 24 and can have a maximum armor of 48.
Those 48 points have to divided for rear and front section.
The legs of the Hunchback have the same rating too.

So is someone you seriously shooting at a Hunchbacks (without the 4SP) legs?

So if you are adding all armor values you get a maximum value of 338 points. No Hunchback, nor other biped BattleMech with 50t can carry more armor.


suggestion

So that is what you alread knew.. now the suggestion:

The maximum of 338 for 50t Mechs stay in place. But it is allowed to uparmor all sections - with exception of the head up to 20% rounded of his maximum armor.

In the Example...you want to uparmor the side torsos of the Hunchback

• 20% of 48 max ~ 10 points
  
• you have actual 320 points of armor
  
• you swap the small laser for another half ton of armor - so you have 336 points now
  
• you remove 2 points from each leg
  
• now you placing the free 20 points of armor at each side torso

Benefit
Because this is direct proportional to the structure value - so tge increasing of the armor on the legs and center torso of a Spider won't be game breaking

Less mobile heavy mechs and assault mechs got more sturdy arms and torsos...but that comes at costs of leg armor (some allready use only few plates there) so shooting at legs may become more common.


So what do you think?

[blinkin]

i want 60 points of armor on the cockpit! <-would be incredibly stupid but not game breaking since that armor has to come from somewhere.

i think this is a pretty good idea that shores up some of the major weak points for some of the mechs. although it does give a bit of advantage for some of the mechs that have unused arms or torso sections that already end up stripped by many pilots. centurion, some catapult designs, many hunchback designs, one of the spider variants, among others.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 12 February 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

i think this is a pretty good idea that shores up some of the major weak points for some of the mechs. although it does give a bit of advantage for some of the mechs that have unused arms or torso sections that already end up stripped by many pilots. centurion, some catapult designs, many hunchback designs, one of the spider variants, among others.

Shouldn't become that problem. Simple because that each location is now is able to carry 200% of its internal structure value. With this suggestion it would be 240% - but only when you remove that 40% of armor points from other locations.
The up armored spider - we are talking about 5 or 7 points...not such a big thing.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Shouldn't become that problem. Simple because that each location is now is able to carry 200% of its internal structure value. With this suggestion it would be 240% - but only when you remove that 40% of armor points from other locations.
The up armored spider - we are talking about 5 or 7 points...not such a big thing.

but it does start to add up on many of the heavier mechs. catapult ears start at 30 each (i think, first thing i usually do is fill it up to 40, but that is because my builds usually depend on the ears heavily).

an altas could easily strip several tons of armor just off of the arms and put it on the torsos since those tend to be the primary targets for anyone trying to kill an atlas.

not saying this is a bad idea, but there are some problems to consider.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 13 February 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

not saying this is a bad idea, but there are some problems to consider.

side torso for a Atlas would be 16-17 points. Thats a single gauss slug - not much for an Atlas that got focused, but much for a Mech that should take damage. Actually they are to fragile.

The ears of the Catapult - well 8 points more armor protection - but because most Catapult i have seen have the flaps already open, there shouldn't be that impact

Maybe I'm wrong....and there is a additional question should all mechs have this option, or only some.
Because...for example the Stalker - it is allready balanced through the fragility of his side torsos.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:

side torso for a Atlas would be 16-17 points. Thats a single gauss slug - not much for an Atlas that got focused, but much for a Mech that should take damage. Actually they are to fragile.

The ears of the Catapult - well 8 points more armor protection - but because most Catapult i have seen have the flaps already open, there shouldn't be that impact

Maybe I'm wrong....and there is a additional question should all mechs have this option, or only some.
Because...for example the Stalker - it is allready balanced through the fragility of his side torsos.

i hadn't even considered that. i would very quickly drop some equipment if it meant i could use some of that tonnage for side torso armor (i already have reduced leg armor.) for my catapult. anymore beyond the 30 front and rear could easily make a huge difference in combat.

before i didn't really think there was any way i could abuse it with my builds.

i run an xl315 and 4x srm6+artemis. one extra volley before i die can often mean i get one more kill or leave another enemy crippled. an extra 5hp could completely change some fights.

Edited by blinkin, 13 February 2013 - 12:46 AM.

[blazarian]

Hmm... This is a bit though one. Although, I think armor is kinda fine as it is, I still miss something in that system. Maybe it is the exchange process of "armor vs tons" in which you could take more armor than by default, but it causes for example these things:

1. your mech goes slower (small penalty)
2. occupies extra slots (something like a 1 slot = 10/ton or so)

So less gear, more armor should be possible to enable some close combat harrassment and a bit different tactics.

[blinkin]

blazarian, on 13 February 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Hmm... This is a bit though one. Although, I think armor is kinda fine as it is, I still miss something in that system. Maybe it is the exchange process of "armor vs tons" in which you could take more armor than by default, but it causes for example these things:

1. your mech goes slower (small penalty)
2. occupies extra slots (something like a 1 slot = 10/ton or so)

So less gear, more armor should be possible to enable some close combat harrassment and a bit different tactics.

don't think #1 is a good idea, but i like #2. i would however make #2 quite a bit more strict as far as the slots per tonnage ratio.

[Karl Streiger]

Armor on Centurion and Catapult and Dragon are indeed acceptable.

Other Mechs like Awesome, Catapract or Atlas however have the disadvantage of huge hit boxes - to be fair... it would be enough when maximal armor of the legs is reduced by 10-20% and side torso armor is increased by 5-20%

blazarian, on 13 February 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Hmm... This is a bit though one. Although, I think armor is kinda fine as it is, I still miss something in that system. Maybe it is the exchange process of "armor vs tons" in which you could take more armor than by default, but it causes for example these things:

1. your mech goes slower (small penalty)
2. occupies extra slots (something like a 1 slot = 10/ton or so)

So less gear, more armor should be possible to enable some close combat harrassment and a bit different tactics.

Sounds for me like modular armor: it occupies a slot - weight a ton, and converted into MWO armor it will have 20 point of protection.
until all modular armor is shot off, you got penalitys for movement.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 13 February 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[blazarian]

blinkin, on 13 February 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

don't think #1 is a good idea, but i like #2. i would however make #2 quite a bit more strict as far as the slots per tonnage ratio.

Think about light mechs pumped with armor and streaks and one laser or so. Feeling the pain already.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

I leg mechs all the time, especially if...

1. I suspect they didn't armor up their legs, and they likely store ammunition there.

2. Their legs are already weakened.

These mechs that you mention, they can still fight after losing a side torso, albeit with reduced firepower...unless you were dumb enough to equip it with [REDACTED / OPSEC].

...you could always twist your torso to keep your stronger torso facing the enemy but I guess that is too complicated.

Edited by CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, 13 February 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

...you could always twist your torso to keep your stronger torso facing the enemy but I guess that is too complicated.

it is always nice to see that there are so smart pilots like you. Let me guess you are riding a Catapult?

Do you have another constructive idea?

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

it is always nice to see that there are so smart pilots like you. Let me guess you are riding a Catapult?

Do you have another constructive idea?

Wow you are really an unpleasant person. Comments like this tend to drive off discussion, because who really wants to talk to a jerk anyway?

But to answer your loaded question, I am usually in an Awesome or a Centurion, with the obligatory D-DC when asked. So I know all about the vulnerability of side-torso sections. But I invest armor into these big shield arms and use them to protect myself from a portion of enemy fire. I didn't always do this, but I endeavored to "be less terrible" and started doing it.

So you could ask for drastic changes to the rules, or you could just Be Less Terrible, like I did.

Edited by CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, 13 February 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 13 February 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Wow you are really an unpleasant person. Comments like this tend to drive off discussion, because who really wants to talk to a jerk anyway?

Again, i have to apologize. I wasn't sure about your previous post... it tasted like "Just shoot the ears of, its simple" I hope you know what I mean.
So you didn't troll back - a good sign. I hope you accept my excuse.

I have to admit that i used Centurion and Awesome for the last time in the closed beta...and their left shield arm can do really a great thing - if you keep in mind wich side your shield arm is... i can remember that i usually circled with the right arm - pointing towards the enemy and so using half of my fire power really fast.

On the other hand - a Atlas - and all know that his right ballistic side is a magnet for enemy fire - same with the Hunchbacks but the SP - can't shield there side torsos... i already have figured out - that rolling damage doesn't work well enough.

So my sugestion was intentionaly pointed at the - a hundred times discussed difference between the stats from the TableTop Game and the real time game - but i didn't got the idea behind transfering the same armor and structure values.

In TT the difference between to hit a side torso and to hit a leg - is the difference between to roll a 5 or to roll a 6 - so in the statistic - the side torso will be hit more times, but the difference is not that big.
In MWO however - if you like - all you shots will hit the side torso - or all shots will hit the leg. Generally the legs are harder targets and the same damage to the torso can cripple the Mech.

With that in mind a movement of maximum armor points from the legs into the torso sounds logical

[MechWarrior849305]

blazarian, on 13 February 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

2. occupies extra slots (something like a 1 slot = 10/ton or so)

This. Since we are speaking about overall shifting of armor limitations in the sections of mech, I think it's the best idea for now. So, you want to shift 5 pts of armor on your leg lower, but to have 5 pts of armor on your CT higher? Fine. Minus one critical slot. Yet, pts/crit. slot should be wise selected (I think of 5 per one, not 10).
Secondly - I don't think, that removing gear to up limits of armor is a good idea. Since fatlas with 1 SmL and 95,5 tons of armor would be a pain to deal with. (Ok, he wouldn't have actually 95,5 tons, but adding of 20-30tons with just removing guns - 1k of armor points higher).

[kiltymonroe]

Armor needs to be buffed again period, perhaps up to triple TT values. In the conversion of BT from a TT game to an FPS simulator, accuracy and DPS have gone way up (and necessarily so) and the durability of 'mechs needs to be increased to compensate. This is only going to get worse when 12 vs. 12 matches start.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 13 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

it is always nice to see that there are so smart pilots like you. Let me guess you are riding a Catapult?

Do you have another constructive idea?

hey i ride an srm cat c4. just because the majority of the srm cat pilots are dumb as a sack of hammers does not mean that having an srm cat automatically makes you dumb.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 13 February 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

hey i ride an srm cat c4. just because the majority of the srm cat pilots are dumb as a sack of hammers does not mean that having an srm cat automatically makes you dumb.

Thats the problem with generalization. When you see 4 or 5 pilots that use A1 as a I win button and are proud to use them, too. Well than all A1 pilots have to be in this way.
I knew some pilots using a A1 - and they really didn't need them. Well have no problem with a SRM C4 - duno why but the C4 would be one of the three Catapults i would ride.

However, after reading several other posts in the forum, i realize that armor switching, or Modular Armor will not help much.

What would help is to take a closer look into the pinpoint issue.
When you shoot at a target at 1000m lets say with 3 PPCs... it has to be enough that you hit the target with all 3 of them - to hit them in a single spot makes it to easy.
Turn the Hunchbacks laser array into a shotgun etc.
But that is another topic.

[MustrumRidcully]

It's an intersting idea.

The basic ratios between the different hit locations come from the table top rules on random hit locations, where aiming at a specific location was only possible under special circumstances. So if you knew the CT would be hit on average 2 out of 12 times, you only need so and so much armour more compared to a component that is hit 1 out of 12 times, or only so and so much more if you consider that a CT destruction ends the mech, a arm destruction does not.

But since we now have a very high accuracy and can strongly affect the hit location, the mathematics change. I think it ultimately boils down to simple addition and maybe a bit of multiplcation in the end.

If it takes you 60 damage to kill a mech entirely or 30 damage to destroy 1/4th of his weaponry or 45 damage to destroy 2/4th of his weaponry, the opimum approach becomes rather obvious.

I tend to think that CT armour and structre needs to be about 3, if not 4 times of the arms. This way, shooting off both arms is at least an interesting option, considering how much faster you can reduce the enemies firepower. The side torsos probably need a factor of 2 on the arms, as destroying a side torso also destroys an arm. The Legs probably should be somewhere between CT and Arms. You can actually kill someone by destroying both legs, and taking out a leg will significantly lower the enemies mobility.