So let's look at a fey ways to destroy a BattleMech:
1) 3 lucky TACs* (assumign TACs exist) that do minimal damage to the CT but crit the engine and 'destroy' the BattleMech.
2) Head-Capped, no other damage.
3) Full CT slot destruction, no other damage (EX: Light Mech takes AC/20 to CT).
4) Side-Torso ammo crit, destroys Side-Torso (and therefore Arm), and CT with massive damage.
5) Most armour mauled, with a few sections breaches and some internal damage dealt everywhere, Pilot ejected, having lost most of his combat ability and having the integrity of his Battlemech severly compromised.
Now my question is, for the purposes of repairs, will case 2 (followed by 1) be the cheapest, since they seem to involve the least stuff to be fixed? In all cases but 1, 2 and 5, the engine is going to need to be fully rebuilt, and in case 1 it will at the least need extensive repairs.
And in all cases, after the BattleMech has been 'taken down', will continued fire into the hulk cause further damage that has to be repaired?
In this last question I see valid point on both ends. First, it's a pretty stark violation of 'realism' to not let us keep causing damage to such a Mech. On the other, it's kind of lame for the poor guy on the recieving-end to be able to do nothing as his helpless Mech is being picked apart by people with nothing better to do than cost him credits. So while from a game-play perspective, one could see it as 'griefing', from a tactical and stratiegic perspective it could easily be thought of as practicing attritional warfare.
Furthermore, are we even going to be able to eject (or surrender)? Seems like Fire-Support might be the most lucrative, if so. You stand back, empty your LRMS, then eject. Sure you have to pay for your ammo spent, and whatever is the cost of ejecting, but surely that's less than taking battle damage. And if your damaged condition is locked at the time of destruction, they can't even find your lifeless Mech after-the fact and inflict damage on you. Seems like a win/win to me.
*- Through Armour Critical
This post will be updated later; I have some additional thoughts, but I must away to class.
Let's just assume that damage is going to be locked down after a Mech becomes inactive, so I don't have to write out that every time I say something that makes that assumption. This also makes sense from the TT, as I believe destroyed/disabled/ejected Mechs were no longer legitimate targets (though I could easily be wrong).
That brings me to the very concept of ejection and surrender. What are the conditions under which ejection is acceptable? What penalties will be applied to those who eject?
If Ejection carries no penalties, people will abuse it in so-called "Pub" games and pop cap as soon as they start taking concentrated fire from the enemy team (or, in an extreme case, perhaps as soon as the game starts). On the flip side, is it really right to penalize people who go ahead and eject when most/all of their weapons are destroyed/out of ammo, or when their torso armours are almost all ripped off?
The purpose of ejection in the TT was to save the pilot in a ravaged Mech that probably wouldn't last another round of combat but since we *are* the pilot, and can't die, that purpose cannot really be served. If it's penalty (assumign it has one, to dampen abuse) is non-conditional, then it seems to me, there's practically no reason to even have it in the game.
This also brings us to the issue of surrender. Imagine for a moment you're on a team who has lost 8 Mechs and your enemy has lost only 4. All 4 of your team's remaining Mechs are lights, and the enemy came in heavy, and the 4 they lost were everything even close to the speed of the 4 left on your team.
Do you really want to sit around and wait for the 8 assaults/heavies/slow mediums to have to hunt down those 4, or wait out the alleged 30 minute mission timer? Now, is it possible for those 4 lights to kill the 8 enemy? Sure its possible, but it's highly unlikely. If this was a game with 11 of my friends, I'd be more than happy to watch those 4 try to pull out the win, but in a random public game, I'd much rather surrender, repair my Mech, and get into a new game.
Now a lot of people talk about how analogous WoT is supposed to be to this, and the solution there is "well, just leave the game and hop into a new one. But there's a problem with that, which really bugs the crap out of me in WoT. In WoT, I can't use the tank I was in until the battle in which it was involved is resolved. That kinda sucks if I just want to play that tank. It wouldn't be *too* bad if I could have multiple copies of that tank in my garage, but I can't. So that "solution" of just leave the game and play another doesn't really work if they use this same outline.
I think when we're talking 12 people per side, a surrender option requiring a vote isn't too open to abuse. Perhaps you could require at least one active player to vote for it, or at least half active players (as additional criteria above the obvious 'over half the total team'). Perhaps an additional requirement of when such a vote may be taken, the team surrendering must be out-manned 2 to 1, or maybe out-tonned by some ratio.
Well, I've lost my train of thought now, so I'm just going to assume that I went ahead and got all the ideas out of my head. Hope you enjoy/enjoyed the read, and it provoked your own thoughts, which I wuold welcome you to share.
Edited by William Petersen, 09 April 2012 - 01:07 PM.