34 replies to this topic

[William Petersen]

I just saw a threat entitled something like "The consequences of total destruction" which set off a chain-reaction of thought in my mind that made me realize there are a lot of ways to destroy a BattleMech, particularly once we get to Tech 2 and have XL Engines.

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.


EDIT:

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.

[LaHyenne]

Head-capped implies destruction of the cockpit. I can't speak to fighter jets or anything like that, but in motorsports the dense amount of high-tech systems in the driver's cockpit means that area is full of expensive stuff. I'm not so sure a headshot would be all that cheap, more so if you consider how expensive it is to train the soldiers that sit in them.

[UncleKulikov]

When a mech is destroyed, it should be removed from play other than cover. The killer will get more bounty and salvage from a lesser damaged mech, and so should have a motivation to headshot or core a mech instead of wipe it off the face of the earth.

And it wouldn't be fair to the person whose mech got sliced, since they couldn't do anything about the further damage that is really, just to grief the player and make their repairs more costly.

[eZZip]

Why would a player have to even pay for additional damage done to his mech after it has been destroyed? Nobody else in the game will see or care that that player will not get as much money except for griefers. Conversely, I do not think that a player should get fewer credits because the mech they destroyed was in a poorer shape—once again, griefers can reduce the amount of credits you get. It seems like an unimportant detail, too, that you would get less money because the mech you destroyed took more damage, since you will not be reading a report written up by your team of engineers about how they were able to salvage this, but not that because you shot off the guy's arm.

[BerryChunks]

eZZip, on 09 April 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

Why would a player have to even pay for additional damage done to his mech after it has been destroyed? Nobody else in the game will see or care that that player will not get as much money except for griefers. Conversely, I do not think that a player should get fewer credits because the mech they destroyed was in a poorer shape—once again, griefers can reduce the amount of credits you get. It seems like an unimportant detail, too, that you would get less money because the mech you destroyed took more damage, since you will not be reading a report written up by your team of engineers about how they were able to salvage this, but not that because you shot off the guy's arm.

griefers or strategists. Maximize enemy losses (in money since this game is carebear mode where your stuff isn't gone after destruction), and they have to fight with a lesser force next time. It's called tactics. SInce you cant take enemy combat mechs as salvage, don't leave it behind for the enemy to use again (cheaply).

Just like when you blow up munition dumps and vehicles when leaving a war theatre in real life so that the enemy cant use them.

Don't call good strategy griefing

[eZZip]

That is not really strategy, and besides, if you wanted to follow through with that line of thought, you could make it so that everybody on the losing team who died will automatically have to buy completely new mechs, because you can safely assume that everybody on the other team decided to obliterate the mechs on the field because it is such 'good strategy.'

It's not good strategy. It does not take any skill, planning, or special tactics to do what you have suggested. All you have to do is point at a stationary, dead mech and hold the fire button.

Considering that losing is such a regular occurance and will almost always happen in a game (if draws will be implemented), I do not see why you think it would be a good gameplay mechanic to hinder players additionally and so regularly. They are not "the enemy"; they are just other players and it is a little sadistic to want to actively disrupt their progress in the metagame for a reason that will be almost completely inconsequential for you.

Edited by eZZip, 09 April 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[William Petersen]

lahyenne, on 09 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Head-capped implies destruction of the cockpit. I can't speak to fighter jets or anything like that, but in motorsports the dense amount of high-tech systems in the driver's cockpit means that area is full of expensive stuff. I'm not so sure a headshot would be all that cheap, more so if you consider how expensive it is to train the soldiers that sit in them.

Considering the pilot is the player, and that for game-player purposes the pilot is never killed, in the case a BattleMech is head-capped, the pilot miraculously, against all odds does, in fact, survive. Every. Single. Time.

Suspension of realism for the needs of the gameplay. I understand and accept reasonable amounts, as should any player. =)


You make a good point about the advanced electronics generally being denser in the cockpit, but at the same time every weapon system is several tons of highly advanced machinery. A cockpit weighs 1 ton (I think?), and while very dense, I don't see it being that expensive relative to the rest of the electronics and equipment a Mech carries.

[wwiiogre]

The entire destruction of a mech head does not mean it has taken any cockpit criticals to the pilot or even to the equipment all it means is the armor for the head both external and internal has taken full damage. Gauss rifles can single shot a mech head for any size mech. ERPPC for clans can do so as well and AC20's. Which is why the upgraded Urban Mech in numbers is so scary. Have seen 12 urbies with AC20's mop the floor against 12 heavy/assault mechs because of this. Legging and Heading and massing fire. Then jump away, wash, rinse and repeat. If you are doing the math that is 240 points worth of AC20 per round from the lil guys.

chris

[Grimm Gunn]

Blowing a downed mech into scrapmetal after it put out of play sounds pretty petty and weak....
It's going to be hard enough for the nubes ( like me) to put out mechs back together with more than just bubble gum and bailing wire after getting thrashed and trashed till we get good enough ( or mechs that can stand toe to toe) with everybody else..

[William Petersen]

Grimm Gunn, on 09 April 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Blowing a downed mech into scrapmetal after it put out of play sounds pretty petty and weak....
It's going to be hard enough for the nubes ( like me) to put out mechs back together with more than just bubble gum and bailing wire after getting thrashed and trashed till we get good enough ( or mechs that can stand toe to toe) with everybody else..

That's because you, like eZZip, are thinking in personal terms rather than at the campaign level. This is a simulation war game with a campaign, if you log in to blow up 'Mechs, that's great, and I'm happy for you, however, some of us immerse ourselves in the campaign and, given the option, would practice total annihilation, not out of spite or 'pettiness', but because that's how you wage war when you know you can't salvage the Mechs you down. It's called attrition. Heck, if I knew the enemy *could* salvage, I'd ask my lance mates to demolish my own Mech to prevent that. That's called Scorched Earth. They're both very effective military strategies. If you don't want to play a military sim, no one's making you, but just because you don't doesn't mean automatically that you should get your way, and those who do shouldn't, or that those who do are "petty".

I can clearly see both side of this argument and am not really too much in favor of one or the other. I have a slight preference for the more realistic, but it's not something I'm terribly passionate about since, for game play, I realize it's probably not going to work like that. The to both solution might be some chance to salvage components but not chassis from downed Mechs. This preserves 'realism', gives reason to not cause excess damage to downed Mechs (for either side), and doesn't cause obscene repair bills.

(EX: Jenner costs 3.2 mil CBills. An MLas costs 40K (FOR THE EMPEROR!), SRM-4 costs 60K, and a ton of ammo costs 27K. I'd say relative to a chassis, components are pretty cheap.)

[Omigir]

I am going to assume you didnt read that threat, otherwise you might recognize this name to the left of my little black box.
I also am going to assume you are not up on the dev blogs and interviews.

Now I make these assumptions becuase you do not take into account the two game types, One is essentially free spawn. This is out of Russ' mouth in an interview as well. And the other is a limited spawn, giving you 3 drops. Not entirely sure how it works, if its you bring 3 mechs out of your mech bay or you just drop the same mech 3 times, but either way, your damage model and concerns should probably calculate these known facts into it. What would doing further damage to an inoperable mech really do? That player has already spawned in a mech and is moving to your location (most likely) to finish *you* off. At the same time, doing additonal damaged to an inactive mech would be a drop int he bucket if he is going to just throw said respawned mech back into the heat of battle.
Ontop of that, you have to think about the fact that the Devs confirmed that there is no perma destruction. Once you own it, its in your stable. Now if it gets fully repped up after each battle is another story, but you never have to worry about it not being yours, or loosing it. To me, this means a player is most likely going to just ride it out and do as much damage as he can while he can. If he can still charge, he will ram that SOB into the enemy. I see this all the time in MW4.

As far as limited spawn, and you waisting through all 3 of your hot drops early on, its safe to say that you are apart of a close nit team and you are in the limited spawn game because you are a more serious and team oriented player. I would wager that most people who dont want to wait for the rest of the match to end, wont go into limed spawn games to begin with.

All things considered, a surrender option would not make a whole lot of sens, its free spawn, i doubt that the stack charges on downed mechs or that there will probably be a cap at the mech's total value or some such. It would be nice to have a retreat mechanic, every body who wants to leave heads to edge of map, if majority does so, you could consider that majority vote to end the match I suppose...

Anybody who would like a good read should check out the original thread, most all of this stuff has been [Caps] Screamed [Caps] about and debated in rather deep detail.

http://mwomercs.com/...uction__st__360

And the Mirror to this thread dealing with respawn, keep in mind since these threads were started and ended some things have been release/confirmed but still a good series of debates.

http://mwomercs.com/...h__1#entry90352

Edited by Omigir, 10 April 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[LordDeathStrike]

ill be using an atlas, hardest mech of all to ct core, also nearly impossible to hs since the shroud covers all but 2 small eye holes that count as cockpit (the death mask on the atlas = ct armor muahahahaha).

ill use my lasers to cut your dead mechs to ribbons, as has been said, if we fight, you are my enemy, my enemy must pay for his imputence.

that being said you wont kill me cause i sat there shooting a dead mech ignoring you either, shoot the live mechs, then clean up the corpses with laser fire!

in the multi drop mode, make sure to burn all the wreckage, if fixing one mech is pricey, fixing 3 or 4 is gonna really suck.

to the previous poster, 1 game mode is 1 life and done, the other game mode is 3 or 4 mechs and done. theres no respawn levels, you need to have that many mechs to drop them in the appropriate mode.

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 10 April 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Angelicon]

William Petersen, on 09 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

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.

Too bad, get another mech and play it while your main is occupied.

Really, this solves a lot of issues and it isn't much of a penalty so I hope they copy this mechanism.

[Angelicon]

William Petersen, on 09 April 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

That's because you, like eZZip, are thinking in personal terms rather than at the campaign level. This is a simulation war game with a campaign, if you log in to blow up 'Mechs, that's great, and I'm happy for you, however, some of us immerse ourselves in the campaign and, given the option, would practice total annihilation, not out of spite or 'pettiness', but because that's how you wage war when you know you can't salvage the Mechs you down. It's called attrition. Heck, if I knew the enemy *could* salvage, I'd ask my lance mates to demolish my own Mech to prevent that. That's called Scorched Earth. They're both very effective military strategies. If you don't want to play a military sim, no one's making you, but just because you don't doesn't mean automatically that you should get your way, and those who do shouldn't, or that those who do are "petty".

I can clearly see both side of this argument and am not really too much in favor of one or the other. I have a slight preference for the more realistic, but it's not something I'm terribly passionate about since, for game play, I realize it's probably not going to work like that. The to both solution might be some chance to salvage components but not chassis from downed Mechs. This preserves 'realism', gives reason to not cause excess damage to downed Mechs (for either side), and doesn't cause obscene repair bills.

(EX: Jenner costs 3.2 mil CBills. An MLas costs 40K (FOR THE EMPEROR!), SRM-4 costs 60K, and a ton of ammo costs 27K. I'd say relative to a chassis, components are pretty cheap.)

If some sort of downtime mechanism is implemented for damaged/destroyed mechs in the campaign, you have a valid point. However if the only effect of trashing a dead but minimally damaged mech is making that other player pay more for repairs, then this should not be allowed. Because at that point it has become a roleplaying exercise for you, and griefing for the target. that's a small plus for you and a big minus for him, and not worth the potential customer dissatisfaction.

[MaddMaxx]

Well one possible compromise might be that after a Mech is downed, in whatever condition, the only means to further damage it would be with Ballistic type weapons.

If we have to pay for ammo (no word yet), and or conserve it, if one tries to run with minimal amounts on board, then sure, hurt those downed Mech further, but doing so also provides the chance of your running out of critical ammo reserves against those other Battle ready Mechs still on the field, or simply waste your own C-Bills with having to replenish all that ammo you actually wasted. I guess a cost analysis would be in order then.

[Program 024]

To all who say total annihilation, if you were to completely level an enemy lance, what would happen to all the salvage? If you completely destroy an enemy, then you have no salvage(that's assuming salvage will be in the game). So if both elements are in the game, destroying deactivated mechs and salvage, then it would have to be a toss up. Do you want the sweet tech from your enemy's mech? Or do you want to increase costs for the enemy? That is where it is up to personal preference, or tactical choice. This is all my opinion by the way

[GrimJim]

Still like the idea of having to pay a "ransom" if you eject (in order to avoid paying out hella repair costs when your team has gone down & things now look very hopeless).

In Battletech's neo-feudal society, surrenders and ransoms would happen all the time, like knights. OR if they can't pay the ransom, have their allegiance switched (thus losing built up loyalty points) if they can't pay. Its a precursor to the "bondsman" idea of the clans. Of course you can switch allegiance back, but the damage is done.

I think its a suitably painful penalty for a game where "no one dies," but the consequences will leave people fighting to the death (as they would when BattleMechs were quite irreplaceable) not jumping out of the game when things don't go their way....and gives you a lot of incentive to always try to win.

....How American is that!

[Ragotag]

William Petersen, on 09 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

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?

A decent salvage system would prevent this from happening most times as there would then be some incentive to leave a downed 'Mech alone. Of course the other solution is to make downed 'Mech's invulnerable to damage -- likely the best anti-grief option for release.

William Petersen, on 09 April 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

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.

This is something that I am interested to see if the Dev's deal with. What about the option to retreat from the battle in order to minimize any further damage and associated repair costs? The old MW4 suicide/damage sponge tactic will only cost the pilot more C-Bills in equipment repairs/replacement, so what is the pilot to do to limit added damage-based expenses when they are no longer combat effective?

Edited by Ragotag, 10 April 2012 - 09:52 AM.

[Ragotag]

BerryChunks, on 09 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

griefers or strategists. Maximize enemy losses (in money since this game is carebear mode where your stuff isn't gone after destruction), and they have to fight with a lesser force next time. It's called tactics. SInce you cant take enemy combat mechs as salvage, don't leave it behind for the enemy to use again (cheaply).

Just like when you blow up munition dumps and vehicles when leaving a war theatre in real life so that the enemy cant use them.

Don't call good strategy griefing

And based on what we know today on how MW:O will deal with this topic, which is nil, I would expect to see that exact strategy put into effect.

Edited by Ragotag, 10 April 2012 - 09:50 AM.

[Angelicon]

BerryChunks, on 09 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

griefers or strategists. Maximize enemy losses (in money since this game is carebear mode where your stuff isn't gone after destruction), and they have to fight with a lesser force next time. It's called tactics. SInce you cant take enemy combat mechs as salvage, don't leave it behind for the enemy to use again (cheaply).

Just like when you blow up munition dumps and vehicles when leaving a war theatre in real life so that the enemy cant use them.

Don't call good strategy griefing

The question is, will this type of action actually hinder the enemy faction's abilities in the meta game? If mech repair costs are low anyway (relative to rewards), then you will not affect the meta game at all by slagging dead mechs.
If this game's payout and repair system are going to be as much like WoT's as I believe, this activity will fail to put a damper on your enemies' ability to field mechs. So there really won't be any mileage in allowing this activity.