May 21, 2018 at 6:11 PM #145752LegacyElite84ModeratorLieutenant ColonelTotal posts : 2516
TL:DR: Rename Armor “Splash Resistance” and a 100 would remove 50% of all splash damage, and keep the “Armor” stat as a direct numerical reduction of alpha damage.
This topic is meant to discuss the revision of the current “Armor” stat, with the addition of a new stat added into the game. For the purpose of this explanation, the current “Armor” stat will be from here on referenced as “Splash Resistance” and the new stat referenced as “Armor”.
With the Splash Resistance stat as it currently sits as of 0.7.2, a 100 Splash Resistance build has the ability to effectively invalidate certain build types from gameplay. Splash is a key (and fairly large) component of the game, and should not be exposed to a complete hard counter. I would like to propose that a full 100 in Splash Resistance will mitigate 50% of all splash damage received.
This would allow splash builds to be viable even against splash resistant builds, though would have a significantly more difficult time winning the fight vs a non splash resistant build, instead of a one way stomp. In the game’s current state, a splash build would be very unlikely to kill a maxed splash resistant build without dealing a significant number of direct hits with a tremendous amount of ammo spent, which is counter intuitive to the role of indirect or direct fire with very slow projectiles where near misses are mostly guaranteed and sometimes even promoted.
The new stat I would like to propose is an Armor stat. This stat would be a direct numerical subtraction to a weapon’s Damage stat. For example, if a part has 3 Armor, and is shot by a weapon that deals 8 damage, the part would receive 5 damage. Relatively simple concept often seen in RTS games. This would add a new element that seems like a logical next step in the constant evolution of stats in MAV. I would like to propose that no part armor is greater than 3 (heavy weapons only) or 2 (hex weapons, chassis, cockpits, and under), and no armor plate is greater than 4.
The above numbers are based on the lowest damage dealt by a few weapons with the lowest alpha, being 5. This will allow for any weapon to do damage, even if heavily mitigated. Weapons most affected by this would be the lighter weapons, such as ARs, MGs, Shotguns, and our newest addition, the HMG, all of which are usually seen on min max builds. The proposed numbers will still allow these builds to viable, however, as mentioned with dedicated splash resistance builds, will have a significantly more difficult time dealing with an armor build vs an non armor build, but the battle could still be winnable.
When mixing of the two stats, armor will have no effect on damage reduction to splash. Generally, parts high in one should have a bit of the other, but nothing that is great in both. For example, a 100 Splash resistance part can have 1 armor, or a 3 Armor part can have a 35% splash resistance, and everything in between, but nothing rocking a 100 splash resistance and 3 armor should exist.
Part time filthy. Part time opportunist. Full time goat. "Holy f*** that was the greatest thing I have heard from your keyboard." - Cyberdogs7 on my top quality shitposting.May 21, 2018 at 6:21 PM #145753TewdrigParticipantWarrant OfficerTotal posts : 467
With the Splash Resistance stat as it currently sits as of 0.7.2, a 100 Splash Resistance build has the ability to effectively invalidate certain build types from gameplay. Splash is a key (and fairly large) component of the game, and should not be exposed to a complete hard counter.
I disagree, I like that if I don’t want to deal with rockets or howitzer shells I can just build to ignore it. If I take that option and become immune or as close as is possible, to splash I am then making myself extremely vulnerable to heat damage. If I add a radiator the radiator itself is still vulnerable to splash.
I like the idea of changing the name to “splash resistance” or something easier to understand for newbies, but I disagree with changing it’s function. I like the rock-paper-scissors balance we’ve got going on. Nothing rules supreme. If I roll in with howitzers and haven’t brought a sidearm, I’ve done it to myself. That’s part of the skill in building a good MAV with a strong toolkit.May 21, 2018 at 9:30 PM #145756Bombdog StudiosForum AdminChief Warrant OfficerTotal posts : 641
If you remember your history of MAV updates, Armor used to do exactly what you are asking.
At first, it was countered by weapon impact force. If the firing weapon did not have enough impact force, the round would bounce, dealing only 50% damage. This allowed snipers to hit heavy targets really hard and light arms to literally bounce off.
Then, armor moved to just a damage reduction, like what you are suggesting. During this time, splash damage became the only weapons used.
Now, armor acts as splash resistance.
While it’s true, the stat does not lend itself to easy understanding, we now have the greatest level of build diversity and weapon kill diversity the game has ever seen.
Splash, is SUPER powerful. It’s not like a 50 damage single shot. A well placed 100 damage round can easily deal over 1,000 in total damage to a build.
Splash is there to punish bad positioning, push targets out of cover, and destroy buildings. A defender build by nature is going to be in this zone. Because of this, it makes sense that a build that is meant to tank as much damage as possible can absorb the splash. If armor did not do damage reduction, durability of some parts would need to be incredibly high just to handle the splash. But then, that would affect how they handle against normal weapons.
Having armor be splash damage reduction essentially allows each part to have 2 different health pools. Same thing with heat damage. Having complete immunity to a single damage type (which doesn’t actually exist in the game by the way) is not horrible given the team nature of the game and the sheer variety of weapon options there are. There are even some weapons that deal multiple damage types, explicitly to handle situations like this.
I can appreciate the possible change in name, but I don’t foresee the damage reduction aspect going away.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.