66 replies to this topic

[MagnusEffect]

Poll update!: I streamlined it a bit to make it less confusing to read. Should still allow for plenty of options. Question 2 & 3 are two parts of the same concept really.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 15 November 2011 - 01:08 AM.

[CaveMan]

How about an option for both legs destroyed just reduces the 'Mech to a crawling pace? It will make gimping less of a cheap tactic.

[MagnusEffect]

i was thinking that, but if a 50 ton war machine has both of its legs "destroyed", the sheer weight of it would cause it to be stuck like a rock in the mud. It could be argued that mechs with hands could have an easier time moving their own weight, but that seems so nuanced that I don't think it would be worth the effort to implement... also, would look rather silly seeing a Atlas dragging himself around on stumps and being able to do little else.

will come back and finish this in a bit...

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 05:43 PM.

[CaveMan]

MagnusEffect, on 14 November 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

i was thinking that, but if a 50 ton war machine has both of its legs "destroyed", the sheer weight of it would cause it to be stuck like a rock in the mud.

So? This is a gameplay question, not a physics question. Realistically the leg bones of a 'Mech should be girders several inches thick that you'd have to hit with a naval artillery shell in order to sever, but BT chose to make them quite fragile in the interest of making the TT game exciting. We're still stuck with reduced leg armor/structure in the canon designs though and for that reason gimping is a super-cheap tactic if it's allowed.
I

[VYCanis]

i like option 3, sorta.

I'd love to see legs start gaining more of a limp as the actuators pop, and then have it simply become dead weight when destroyed, becoming a full blown leg drag type motion.
If the next leg follows the example of the first, mech falls over, but is still not destroyed.

As for disabled, head destroyed, pilot ejected, pilot killed, CT destroyed, significant ammo explosion without CASE, or engine all blow'd up

I'd like to make the following distinction though. Just because the CT or the engine are destroyed. i don't think necessarily that it ought to kill the pilot. If only because i think it would be cool as hell to ride a mech that has suddenly gone dead into the ground and experience that first hand. It should count as a kill yeah, but, i'd love to still be able to see all my instruments go dead or emergency lighting, and smoke everywhere with the ground suddenly coming up fast.

Edited by VYCanis, 14 November 2011 - 05:59 PM.

[wpmaura]

CaveMan, on 14 November 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

So? This is a gameplay question, not a physics question. Realistically the leg bones of a 'Mech should be girders several inches thick that you'd have to hit with a naval artillery shell in order to sever, but BT chose to make them quite fragile in the interest of making the TT game exciting. We're still stuck with reduced leg armor/structure in the canon designs though and for that reason gimping is a super-cheap tactic if it's allowed.
I

not the pins holding the leg together as well as the material providing muscle. Seriously if I was standing around and then a weapon hit me that stripped my leg of all muscle and cartilege but left my bones intact, I think I would fall down.

I find amazing the amount of carebears in here, you loose a leg you go down. deal with it. Dont lose your leg.

Edited by wpmaura, 14 November 2011 - 05:59 PM.

[CaveMan]

wpmaura, on 14 November 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

I find amazing the amount of carebears in here, you loose a leg you go down. deal with it. Dont lose your leg.

Not wanting gameplay to be dictated by cheapshots is carebearing now? Revise your ideas, thanks.

We've all seen easy legging gone awry. It was called MW3 1.0 and it f*cking sucked.

[jezebel]

I think we as a community need to get away from this "legging is cheap/dishonorable" excuse. MW3 was a long time ago. It's not cheating, it's not dezgra, it's never been a violation of Zellbrigen, and it simply doesn't make logical sense to label as dishonorable.

A brilliant fellow named David Sirlin summed it up better than I can:

Quote

"Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, “fun,” and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are a few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I’m talking to with this book. Some of them don’t need any help; they’re on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain’s base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made-up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a “deep” game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they’d just be happier. “Playing to win” is largely the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak." - David Sirlin, from Playing To Win

But anyway, as for disabling a 'Mech. I think an obliterated leg should be a 'Mech unable to stand. A hurt leg should be a 'Mech with a limp. Two hurt legs should be gimped to a crawl. Two obliterated legs should be Krang without his body suit - and suiciding/ejecting is the option.

Edited by jezebel, 14 November 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[MrHumble]

If the game is set in 3048-ish then there should be some 'scatter' to gunnery....the pinpoint accuracy of the previous video game(s) was outside of the 'normal' tabletop game's ability to target a leg...much less hit the opposing mech at all...

...If anything it'll make listening to players on VOIP awesome.

[MagnusEffect]

CaveMan, on 14 November 2011 - 05:46 PM, said:

So? This is a gameplay question, not a physics question. Realistically the leg bones of a 'Mech should be girders several inches thick that you'd have to hit with a naval artillery shell in order to sever, but BT chose to make them quite fragile in the interest of making the TT game exciting. We're still stuck with reduced leg armor/structure in the canon designs though and for that reason gimping is a super-cheap tactic if it's allowed.
I

I get what you are saying, but (speaking from a gameplay standpoint) if a pilot destroys BOTH legs on the mech, that is dealing more overall damage than if he had just cored the center torso. If they lose both legs, at the very least they shouldn't be going anywhere. My biggest annoyance with MW4 (and other MW games) was how you exploded when you lost both your legs... looked rather silly. Besides, getting legged is easily avoided by peeping from behind barriers.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 06:33 PM.

[zax]

In gameplay terms, rooting someone in place for losing a leg is simply not fun. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not, the bottom line is that when you give players the option to root someone in place and just leave them there for the rest of the fight, that's what smart players will do. After all, why bother killing a target when they are no threat? You don't, you ignore them and leave them for last. I don't know about you, but sitting there for 10+ minutes, unable to do anything, is not my idea of a good time.

Players must be able to still move (albeit at reduced speed) after losing a leg. After losing both legs, players should die/respawn.

[CaveMan]

MrHumble, on 14 November 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

If the game is set in 3048-ish then there should be some 'scatter' to gunnery....the pinpoint accuracy of the previous video game(s) was outside of the 'normal' tabletop game's ability to target a leg...much less hit the opposing mech at all...

...If anything it'll make listening to players on VOIP awesome.

This guy gets it, I think.

The problem isn't that shooting for an opponent's legs isn't a valid tactic, it's that all the 'Mechs in the game were designed for a system where you CANNOT TARGET A BODYPART just by mousing over it. Allowing pinpoint targeting and legging without totally redesigning the damage system is tantamount to exploiting a bug.

The MW2:Mercs and MW3 1.0 system is the worst imaginable. Legging is instant death or complete immobilization. Mixing that with MW3's pinpoint accuracy means: everyone loads up 4 clan ERLL and the game outcome comes down to who has the lowest ping time. Anything under 60 tons just gets splattered within seconds of spawning. It becomes a single-dominant-strategy game. At that point why even have more than one 'Mech design available?

That's not the MW game I want to play.

Maybe having double legging not be death is an overreaction, but frankly you'd be so immobilized at that point you won't be around long anyway. The main reason to do it is it still allows you to go down swinging.

[Caballo]

jezebel, on 14 November 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

I think we as a community need to get away from this "legging is cheap/dishonorable" excuse. MW3 was a long time ago. It's not cheating, it's not dezgra, it's never been a violation of Zellbrigen, and it simply doesn't make logical sense to label as dishonorable.

A brilliant fellow named David Sirlin summed it up better than I can:


But anyway, as for disabling a 'Mech. I think an obliterated leg should be a 'Mech unable to stand. A hurt leg should be a 'Mech with a limp. Two hurt legs should be gimped to a crawl. Two obliterated legs should be Krang without his body suit - and suiciding/ejecting is the option.

Althought i agree with you in the last part, I found your wonderfull David Sibling the most stupid guy i've ever read. Basically all he did was saying "The end justifies the means" (...not a new concept, if you've ever heard about Niccolo Machiavelli), which is a nice way of legitimate, for example, the use of cheats.

No, thanks. Call it the way you want, but the indiscriminated use of leg shooting was a real cause of empty servers in MW games, as other fellows stated above. If this is going to be serious, let's leave Mr. Sibling's ideas in the entrance, please.

IMHO, disabling a mech completely by shooting at that part should be, at least, as hard as shooting to center torso, if not more. Basically, they have a lot of armour, and people's able to walk with a wooden leg. Other part of the question is how 50 tons of steel falls to the ground, and what damage they inflict to the internal components, but assuming the reactor's going to explode the moment a battlemech gets both legs crippled is just a mistake to me.

Edited by Caballo, 14 November 2011 - 07:30 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

Poll has been updated... not that a lot of people listened, but you may now vote (and not worry about any big changes).

[Gaius Cavadus]

If the engine is still cooking and the pilot is in the cockpit that mech is still viable.

If you disagree you always have the option to eject; don't force it on the rest of us.

[MagnusEffect]

Cavadus, on 14 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

If the engine is still cooking and the pilot is in the cockpit that mech is still viable.

If you disagree you always have the option to eject; don't force it on the rest of us.

I tried to fix it to allow for that.

sorry... some confusion with question 2 & 3.

updated to be streamlined and less confusing. 2 & 3 should be seen more as an "if this, then that" type line of questioning. Let me know if there is an option i'm missing

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 07:47 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

CaveMan, on 14 November 2011 - 06:53 PM, said:

This guy gets it, I think.

The problem isn't that shooting for an opponent's legs isn't a valid tactic, it's that all the 'Mechs in the game were designed for a system where you CANNOT TARGET A BODYPART just by mousing over it. Allowing pinpoint targeting and legging without totally redesigning the damage system is tantamount to exploiting a bug.

The MW2:Mercs and MW3 1.0 system is the worst imaginable. Legging is instant death or complete immobilization. Mixing that with MW3's pinpoint accuracy means: everyone loads up 4 clan ERLL and the game outcome comes down to who has the lowest ping time. Anything under 60 tons just gets splattered within seconds of spawning. It becomes a single-dominant-strategy game. At that point why even have more than one 'Mech design available?

That's not the MW game I want to play.

Maybe having double legging not be death is an overreaction, but frankly you'd be so immobilized at that point you won't be around long anyway. The main reason to do it is it still allows you to go down swinging.

ah ok, I see...

well what if they just made the legs as tough (maybe just a bit tougher than before?) as the center torso? that way it doesn't make legging someone any easier than killing them outright. then you only have to deal with legging in terms of people just really wanting you not going anywhere (or maybe if you are hiding your CT).

I still think that the 1 leg dead = limping, 2 legs dead = immobilization is the best option though. On average, I think it is easier to just core the CT than shoot both legs off if all you are trying to do is kill them (especially if destroying both legs still leaves them alive and able to shoot back).

Targeting mechanics itself should probably be discussed in a separate thread. This one is just for "what happens when you lose one or two legs?" type stuff.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[jezebel]

Caballo, on 14 November 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

Althought i agree with you in the last part, I found your wonderfull David Sibling the most stupid guy i've ever read. Basically all he did was saying "The end justifies the means" (...not a new concept, if you've ever heard about Niccolo Machiavelli), which is a nice way of legitimate, for example, the use of cheats.

Not true - Sirlin does not encourage cheating.
He does, however, encourage performing to the absolute pinnacle within the established rules of the given game. He encourages constant improvement, and he encourages avoiding stagnation/plateauing. What is not respectable about trying to constantly improve in everything you attempt?

I guess this deviates from the legging/disabling discussion ... sortof. But the "legging/disablement" debate has been in this community so long that it's become inseparable from the "fair play" discussion.

I think that there are two kinds of gamers.
- players who try to operate to their maximum potential (IE, win). This is how they have fun.
- players who expect others to handicap themselves, within a mental construct of additional rules. These people only have fun if others play within those imaginary rules.
Edit: Maybe there's a third. The "I don't care, just let me shoot stuff" gamer.

Both of them have lives. Both of them have fun playing their chosen game.
One of them wins.

I don't mean to be a firebrand, here. I'm just saying - today, it's legging. I'm sure if the devs fix the ancient mythical "legging problem," a new topic will crop up to kvetch about. Maybe cat-napping. Maybe sniping. Maybe looking at your opponent cross-eyed. All I'm trying to say is, whatever ends up happening, play the game to your pinnacle. Don't make up imaginary "fair/honorable" rules to hold against anyone who is successful.

Edited by jezebel, 14 November 2011 - 09:07 PM.

[Xhaleon]

I would like you to add an extra option for the legging poll:

If both legs are destroyed, any mech with at least one handed arm intact can pull itself along the ground at a snails pace.
Any mechs without them can sit go there being useless and doing nothing.

Hey, it's one use for having hands while the devs are still thinking whether to add melee in eventually or not.
It also hammers into people's brains the solid fact that a mech's legs are in no way a weakness and a target.
Amputating its legs just means it alpha strikes you from a stable position, and then comes scampering towards you on both arms while chest cannons are blazing away. A good method of conserving the enemy's assets and getting salvage, also a good way to waste ammunition and get killed.

Edited by Xhaleon, 14 November 2011 - 09:21 PM.

[Alexander Grave]

J Echo, on 14 November 2011 - 08:38 PM, said:

Let me put it this way: even if you made a china cabinet out of titanium-steel alloy, what happens to the china inside when you push over the cabinet? Even if the cabinet is undamaged, the china inside will be pretty messed up from the acceleration forces (i.e. impact).

^^This. I sincerely agree with it. Although it's nice to think that if my legs break, if a mech falls, you're screwed. Period.

The only way around it would be if the legs just up and died, instead of being sheered off or blown apart. I.E. Actuators die, legs fold.

So, if the mech ends up "squatting", that's different. But if the legs are just plain destroyed, pilot death. Thoughts?