47 replies to this topic

[Damion Sparhawk]

I'm sure there's plenty of posts on the topic, but I don't particularly want to refresh an old one (because that would require me to read through it all) but I had a thought and figured I'd bring it up... I'm not sure how melee was handled in the tabletop game but it always seemed to me that a melee attack on another mech would be almost as devestating to the attacker as the attackee, so why not make that the case? Sure you can cripple another mech with a good melee strike, but you may just take out your own melee weapon (or the entire arm!) and heaven forbid you should miss! all that weight thrown in one direction? You better have some damn good gyro's buddy! I for one would still probably do it, even if the penalties were severe because... well there's nothing quite so viscerally satisfying than shredding tons of metal with a giant axe! XD (don't think I really need a poll, I'm sure there's several already quantifying the desire for melee in MWO)

[Manthony Higgs]

I don't think the attacker is damaged in TTBattletech's melee, but I'm not certain. I'd love to see an Axe or hatchetman in this game, but I heavily doubt we'll see them anytime soon, if ever.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Manthony Higgs, on 07 July 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I don't think the attacker is damaged in TTBattletech's melee, but I'm not certain. I'd love to see an Axe or hatchetman in this game, but I heavily doubt we'll see them anytime soon, if ever.

yeah I hardly expect them to be out anytime soon, but I agree I'd love to see them ^.^

[Manthony Higgs]

From what I'm reading on Sarna.net, it sounds like melee damage is based off the tonnage of the attacking Mech. The Damage to Weight ratio seems to vary from weapon to weapon.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Manthony Higgs, on 07 July 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

From what I'm reading on Sarna.net, it sounds like melee damage is based off the tonnage of the attacking Mech. The Damage to Weight ratio seems to vary from weapon to weapon.

I would expect as much, you'd hardly expect a 30 ton mech to be able to hit like an Atlas XD, though generally they don't usually put melee weaponry on the lighter mechs anyway, probably for that same reason, try driving in a railroad spike with a regular hammer

[Lightdragon]

heres my thoughts...use the searrch function and find the other 100 plus topics about this crap

[Damion Sparhawk]

Lightdragon, on 07 July 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

heres my thoughts...use the searrch function and find the other 100 plus topics about this crap

your thoughts were answered in the first post, if it truly bothers you that I made another topic about it, POSTING about it, is the absolute worst solution you can perform. Since you then bump the subject back up to relevant

That said, unless you masochistically want to bump posts you don't like, try to post relevant replies to the topics you choose to read ^.^

[Insidious Johnson]

This is the one topic for which I DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF A SEARCH FUNCTION. Spam it like Urbanmech meme.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Insidious Johnson, on 07 July 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

This is the one topic for which I DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF A SEARCH FUNCTION. Spam it like Urbanmech meme.

[buckaroo]

Insidious Johnson, on 07 July 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

This is the one topic for which I DO NOT SUPPORT THE USE OF A SEARCH FUNCTION. Spam it like Urbanmech meme.

Seconded.

I want an Urbanmech with a Vibrosword, dammit, and I want it NOW!

[Awesome Krauser]

I would love melee weapons like Light Swords for Light Mechas and heavy Hammers for Heavy mechas and stuff like that

[Xandre Blackheart]

There are a couple of issues with melee that would be difficult to reconcile with a real time sim/fps

On the board game it was pretty easy to determine when two mechs were adjacent. In a sim when one mech is moving and the other is standing still do you treat it as a charge? Do you automatically lock them in combat? Should you only go to melee combat when they are both stationary and adjacent? (Does adjacent here means 30 meters - which is actually still pretty far?).

And if there's a lot of consideration to being able to determine when two mechs are even capable of engaging in melee, there's still the problem of how to actually implement a physical combat system. Do you need to swap to a "melee HUD"?. Or would the attacks be automatic 2 punches and a kick? (or even a predetermined checkbox - left arm punch/right arm no/left leg kick) What about other weapon systems? (can't fire arm mounted weapons while punching - and I suppose leg mounted systems while kicking).

So it's not surprising that it hasn't been tried in any previous titles. I would hazard a guess that the current development team aren't all that eager to take it on either while they are still struggling to get models shoved out the door and balance weapons systems and a skills system.

Maybe one day they'll have time if the game stays solvent enough for future development.

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 08 July 2012 - 07:04 PM.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Xandre Blackheart, on 08 July 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

There are a couple of issues with melee that would be difficult to reconcile with a real time sim/fps

On the board game it was pretty easy to determine when two mechs were adjacent. In a sim when one mech is moving and the other is standing still do you treat it as a charge? Do you automatically lock them in combat? Should you only go to melee combat when they are both stationary and adjacent? (Does adjacent here means 30 meters - which is actually still pretty far?).

And if there's a lot of consideration to even being able to determine when two mechs are even capable of engaging in melee, There's also the problem of how to actually implement a physical combat system. Do you need to swap to a "melee HUD"?. Or would the attacks be automatic 2 punches and a kick? (or even a predetermined checkbox - left arm punch/right arm no/left leg kick) What about other weapon systems? (can't fire arm mounted weapons while punching - and I suppose leg mounted systems while kicking).

So it's not surprising that it hasn't been tried in any previous titles. I would hazard a guess that the current development team aren't all that eager to take it on either while they are still struggling to get models shoved out the door and balance weapons systems and a skills system.

Maybe one day they'll have time if the game stays solvent enough for future development.

I think your version of mech melee is far more involved than could ever be implemented, first off, mechwarrior mechs aren't graceful enough to 'kick' DFA is about the only way your legs will ever intentionally impact another mech, basically I'd see melee as ramming another mech and swinging your melee weapon in the hopes of crippling them, I'd imagine the attack action would have to be pretty basic or you'd guarantee doing more damage to your arm actuators by attacking than you could concievably do to the enemy mech (robotech combat looks pretty and all, but imagine all the stress all those components have to be taking every time you simply SWING a weapon, not even HITTING) a lot of people overlook the damage we do to ourselves on a daily basis simply by moving through life, the difference is, we can repair the majority of that damage because the body is designed to do just that, a mech doesn't have the same self repair capabilities, dents won't push themselves out and buff over, struts won't mend themselves over time, etc... ad naseum basically, K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple (you can guess what the last S is for)
so, all you'd do is charge the mech, ram them, and 'fire' your melee weapon like any other weapon system. And like I said before, I imagine missing would probably throw you off balance or even topple your mech, hitting might do significant damage to your melee weapon system, but hopefully the payoff would be worth both the risk and the hurt.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Damion Sparhawk, on 08 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

I think your version of mech melee is far more involved than could ever be implemented, first off, mechwarrior mechs aren't graceful enough to 'kick' DFA is about the only way your legs will ever intentionally impact another mech, basically I'd see melee as ramming another mech and swinging your melee weapon in the hopes of crippling them, I'd imagine the attack action would have to be pretty basic or you'd guarantee doing more damage to your arm actuators by attacking than you could concievably do to the enemy mech (robotech combat looks pretty and all, but imagine all the stress all those components have to be taking every time you simply SWING a weapon, not even HITTING) a lot of people overlook the damage we do to ourselves on a daily basis simply by moving through life, the difference is, we can repair the majority of that damage because the body is designed to do just that, a mech doesn't have the same self repair capabilities, dents won't push themselves out and buff over, struts won't mend themselves over time, etc... ad naseum basically, K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple (you can guess what the last S is for)
so, all you'd do is charge the mech, ram them, and 'fire' your melee weapon like any other weapon system. And like I said before, I imagine missing would probably throw you off balance or even topple your mech, hitting might do significant damage to your melee weapon system, but hopefully the payoff would be worth both the risk and the hurt.

Original TT rules included physical attacks of Kicking, Punching, Charging and DFA. It's all in there. (including piloting rolls for missing a kick IIRC)

I'm not going to bother arguing physics because you can always come up with fluff reasons why certain physics do or do not apply, such as Gyros for balance, new materials for structure and shock absorption etc.

The Atlas does 20 points of damage per kick and 10 damage per punch. If you want a completely non-canon set of rules for physical combat you could just say so from the outset. If you only wanted portions of it (like the charge and DFA) implemented, you could also say that in the original post.

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 08 July 2012 - 09:05 PM.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Xandre Blackheart, on 08 July 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

Original TT rules included physical attacks of Kicking, Punching, Charging and DFA. It's all in there. (including piloting rolls for missing a kick IIRC)

I'm not going to bother arguing physics because you can always come up with fluff reasons why certain physics do or do not apply, such as Gyros for balance, new materials for structure and shock absorption etc.

The Atlas does 20 points of damage per kick and 10 damage per punch. If you want a completely non-canon set of rules for physical combat you could just say so from the outset. If you only wanted portions of it (like the charge and DFA) implemented, you could also say that in the original post.

appologies but I did state that I didn't know how melee worked in the tabletop game (in the OP) that said I really doubt the tabletop rules intended melee to be anything like robotech would have us all believe mech combat would be, okay let's say an atlas kicks, you really think he's going to pull off a chuck norris roundhouse kick? At best it's going to be a short and simple straight leg kick, I didn't say anything about punching because obviously a mech can punch, but given my proposal a punch without a melee weapon would likely do more harm to your own mech than damage to theirs. (though 10 damage is rather respectable, if it costs you a heavy weapon or 2-3 other weapons it probably isn't worth the strike)

[Xandre Blackheart]

Damion Sparhawk, on 08 July 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

appologies but I did state that I didn't know how melee worked in the tabletop game (in the OP) that said I really doubt the tabletop rules intended melee to be anything like robotech would have us all believe mech combat would be, okay let's say an atlas kicks, you really think he's going to pull off a chuck norris roundhouse kick? At best it's going to be a short and simple straight leg kick, I didn't say anything about punching because obviously a mech can punch, but given my proposal a punch without a melee weapon would likely do more harm to your own mech than damage to theirs. (though 10 damage is rather respectable, if it costs you a heavy weapon or 2-3 other weapons it probably isn't worth the strike)

If I recall possible targets for kicks were indeed limited to the targeted mechs legs. It really wasn't that outlandish of a system and it even included the fact that mechs without hand actuators (like catapults) couldn't punch. Many of the mechs with large arm mounted weapons weren't allowed to punch with those arms specifically because they didn't have hand actuators.

Also if I recall, using a hand weapon, like the axeman, boosted "punch" damage to kick levels.

It really is worth your time to look up the table top melee rules, they cover a lot of the issues you brought up.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Xandre Blackheart, on 08 July 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

If I recall possible targets for kicks were indeed limited to the targeted mechs legs. It really wasn't that outlandish of a system and it even included the fact that mechs without hand actuators (like catapults) couldn't punch. Many of the mechs with large arm mounted weapons weren't allowed to punch with those arms specifically because they didn't have hand actuators.

Also if I recall, using a hand weapon, like the axeman, boosted "punch" damage to kick levels.

It really is worth your time to look up the table top melee rules, they cover a lot of the issues you brought up.

probably, but my post isn't about the rules in TT but how to effectively utalize melee in MW:O, punching and kicking aside the real reason people want melee (or at least it seems to be this way in my opinion) is for those mechs like the axeman and the hatchetman that are specifically built for the purpose, not to mention all the oddball worker mechs that could be brought to bear for (forgive me) kicks, plus of course DFA (which I think they're already incorperating) and charging (not sure if they are or not) I'm not expecting them to add melee anytime soon in any aspect, but I thought one way to keep the game from literally becoming a slug fest would be to provide reasonable (and realistic) penalties for melee attacks, I mean, it could be really interesting to see how you could incorperate things like speed on impact etc... along with penalties for missing (charging in... shawing and a miss... ooooh and a heavy faceplant into the turf for our overexuberant axeman is just icing on the cake)

[Otto Cannon]

I think the simplest way to bring melee into the game would be (at least to start with) to only allow it with a specific brawling weapon like a hatchet which would cost weight to add like other weapons.

You could leave out other attacks on the basis that they would be likely to damage the attacking mech and as such be last resort desperation rather than something a trained pilot would normally attempt, as well as being fiendishly hard to program.

This would allow anyone who really wants melee to have at least something they can do, while not making it a huge feature of gameplay for players who don't want it, and they could possibly add punches and kicks into the game later if the axe attacks prove popular.

Personally I would find it hilarious if a Commando ran up to my Atlas with an axe and tried to kneecap me, even (or especially) if it succeeded and I died.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Damion Sparhawk, on 08 July 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

probably, but my post isn't about the rules in TT but how to effectively utalize melee in MW:O, punching and kicking aside the real reason people want melee (or at least it seems to be this way in my opinion) is for those mechs like the axeman and the hatchetman that are specifically built for the purpose, not to mention all the oddball worker mechs that could be brought to bear for (forgive me) kicks, plus of course DFA (which I think they're already incorperating) and charging (not sure if they are or not) I'm not expecting them to add melee anytime soon in any aspect, but I thought one way to keep the game from literally becoming a slug fest would be to provide reasonable (and realistic) penalties for melee attacks, I mean, it could be really interesting to see how you could incorperate things like speed on impact etc... along with penalties for missing (charging in... shawing and a miss... ooooh and a heavy faceplant into the turf for our overexuberant axeman is just icing on the cake)

Uhm.. really, that stuff IS covered in the original physical attack ruleset. Almost everything you just speculated about.

Charging rules. DFA rules. Missed attacks.

Maybe if you went and looked it might help you formulate your suggestion of exactly HOW you would like to see charging implemented, or physical attacks from a handheld weapon or a punch.

As it stands you haven't stated anything other than it would be nice if... or it would be cool if...

Well yeah, I can't argue with that. It would be cool.

Edited by Xandre Blackheart, 08 July 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Damion Sparhawk]

Otto Cannon, on 08 July 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

I think the simplest way to bring melee into the game would be (at least to start with) to only allow it with a specific brawling weapon like a hatchet which would cost weight to add like other weapons.

You could leave out other attacks on the basis that they would be likely to damage the attacking mech and as such be last resort desperation rather than something a trained pilot would normally attempt, as well as being fiendishly hard to program.

This would allow anyone who really wants melee to have at least something they can do, while not making it a huge feature of gameplay for players who don't want it, and they could possibly add punches and kicks into the game later if the axe attacks prove popular.

Personally I would find it hilarious if a Commando ran up to my Atlas with an axe and tried to kneecap me, even (or especially) if it succeeded and I died.

yeah that's kinda what I was going with too, though I'd also expect melee weapons to be kinda like jump jets, you'd have to at least be built with them in mind to use them. (though I suppose in that respect any mech with a hand actuater might theoretically be 'built for it' by that definition)