29 replies to this topic

[Nothing Whatsoever]

PaladinXIII, on 18 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Great Idea, because Atlas needs 124 HP for internals to go with the 124 HP of armor.

Well, I'd be fine with that, and many Atlas pilots eventually seem to distribute Armor as 114/10 or 110/14 (from the default 94/28) due to how Atlas mechs often get focused as a priority target, this shouldn't create that great of an imbalance, since we can still deal a lot of damage with how our weapons are currently balanced.

And although, there might be a need to slightly increase ammo counts so that damage potential is closer to 200 damage per ton (over the current ~150 damage per ton), I would think that increasing Internal HP would still be a better idea than increasing armor as has been asked/suggested in other threads.

Lastly, Components are still rather vulnerable and can be destroyed, plus MG's (if the devs really want to keep the damage for MG's as low as it currently is) to take out items before a section is finally destroyed, and CASE might be used more in combat, to protect against ammo explosions since Mechs would be more durable after losing their Armor.

[Baudin]

No. This is a terrible idea.

[SweetWarmIce]

If the torso's destroyed, then the arm has no connection to the rest of the mech's systems.

[buttmonkey]

SweetWarmIce, on 18 April 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

If the torso's destroyed, then the arm has no connection to the rest of the mech's systems.

if the leg is destroyed, then it has no connection to the.... wait oh **** what?

[buttmonkey]

PaladinXIII, on 18 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

When I use to play COD4 why did people die when I shot at their pinky toe or I shot their weapon itself? For that matter how could someone run in those games after jumping off a building? Oh you got shot 32 times? Just hide behind a wall for a few seconds, and you'll magically stop bleeding and hemorrhaging.

Game Logic, that's why.

Because the creators realized that if they had made it to where you lose one leg and you fall over, then everyone would go for the legs only and this would be KneecapWarrior, but at the same time they wanted players to think about their armoring and whether or not they need to take the damage else where.

Case in point, I have the internals on the Right Torso of my mech exposed and the enemy is in front of me. I have 25% armor left on the right arm and 25% left on my left arm. One arm carries an AC/10 and the other arm carries an SRM6, while the right torso carries 2 medium lasers (Made up mech and weapons), and there is a high probability that the enemy's next attack will strip the armor off either arm if I shield and I could possibly lose the arm I shield with or the weapon.

There are 2 choices:
Take the damage to the front, which will most likely lead to the destruction (distraction) of the right torso and with it the right arm and weapon
Let either arm take the damage with the risk of losing the arm and the weapon

So choosing to shield leads to loss of possibly one weapon while the other choice leads to loss of not just a torso with 2 medium lasers but to the loss of the right arm and weapon as well.

This game requires thinking and strategy not just shooting what is in front of you. If you still have a problem that you can fight with one leg, then by all means shutdown your mech when it happens, I'm sure the other team will understand.




Great Idea, because Atlas needs 126 HP for internals to go with the 126 HP of armor.

ok firstly your comparing cod to mwo which is a bad idea as one is a twitchy shoot em up designed for angry pubescent boys, and secondly mwo is as the devs themsaleves said, supposed to be a kind of simulator. if you were playing world of tanks for example and you destroyed an enemy tanks treads but it just kept on coming i dont think you would have the same opinion. i could just as easily say, protect your legs better then, dont stand out in the open with nothing in front of your legs.

my point is that it is nearly impossible to justify when you take a complete 180, 2 seconds later when talking about arms and torsos. destroy a torso and lose your torso and arm, destroy a leg and all you see is a drop in your max speed.

furthermore, can you explain to me why its such a big deal to lose your leg. it would not turn into mech kneecapper as you state. why would it even fall over? do you fall over when you lift up one leg? its entirely feasable to have the mech just remain immobile. im not saing i want that,

but what i am saying is that its very hypocritical to say - its unrealistic for

1. your arm to stay on after you lose a torso,

but its realistic for

2. your mech to run at 75kph after your leg has been blown off.

how anyone can say those things with a straight face and a functioning brain beggars belief. unless of course your typing with your tongue firmly in cheek

[Donas]

The current run-speed is out there, for sure. Though for the first 4 seconds or so after striking a crippled leg, your mech limps at an appallingly slow rate. (which I believe it should.) I can see where they were going with it, since you still have one good leg, but I dont know anyone that can hop at have their bipedal speed. 25% speed would probably be more resaonable. (and that remaining leg should probably be taking damage slowly over time if it moves, since its taking a pounding just by hopping)

I believe part of the disparity between the two (torso destruction and leg destruction) is in the representation of it. Your mechs leg hasn't been blown off. Its been 'destroyed' in that it no longer serves any more purpose than a crutch or peg leg. Its internal structure seems to assume that beyond the statistical value where function degrades as it takes damage there is another assumed mechanical stability provided by the twisted material that remains. Further pouring damage into that leg, through damage transfer does destroy the mech. Is this because the bullets and missiles are scooped up through a funnel and aimed into the internals of the mech body? nope. I believe this damage mechanic to merely be the representation of that last bit of assumed structure being finally cut to bits, and the mech being rendered completely inneffective (ie, leg now actually blown off, and combat inneffective, laying on the ground, which is where it winds up)

As an extension to this, a further disparity comes from the comarison between legs and torsos. As a torso has something hanging off of it providing load, where the leg does not. It has the weight of the mech on it, obviously, but my theory above accounts for that scenario. What I mean is that the leg has nothing hanging of of it. And while the argument could reasonably be made that the torso would also take this into account (ie, its structure is built to support the weight of a limb) there hasnt been any representation in game visually or otherwise that this 'assumed additional structure' exists. The point that some have made that all of the control wiring and whatnot were destroyed with the torso also bears merit. Also, if a Hatchetman has its arm destroyed, which is represented by it coming off, I don't believe we'd be having this conversation about retaining the hatchet. It also is my belief that the torso elements are not going to be as beefy as the legs, since they dont carry anywhere near the weight nor see remotely the same stresses that the legs must.

What would be cool, in my opinion, was that if sometimes when the torso got blown out with something other than explosive weapons, that the torso section would collapse but hang on, leaving the arm dangling at some unnatural angle similar to that of person with their shoulder out of the socket. Weapons nonfunctional, but you could still shield with it in a rudimentary form.

That, and heavily nerfing wrecked leg travel speeds.

Edited by Donas, 19 April 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[Donas]

I had another thought as to why the legs would remain while torso and arms are removed. It lies with the definition of 'internal structure'.

Internal structure might be though of more accurately as "Functional internal working components" and not "Mech frame".

Where this would cause a difference between the behavior of leg and torso destruction mechanics is that the legs, requiring massive loads and stress endurance, would have an independent frame or skeleton to them, that the internals are mounted to, and then armored, whereas the torso and arms (in order to save weight and keep center of gravity down) uses components that function themselves as framing, similar to how some motorcycle engines dont rest within the frame of a motorcycle, they are functionally part of the frame and other components are mounted to it. Other heavy machinery has similar build mechanics to this to save weight. A forktruck I used to drive had structure like this in places. Thus, when the internal structure of the torso's and arms are destroyed, they are also being destroyed as skeletally fuctioning components, and things start falling of, whereas the legs, having an independant skeletal frame, do not.

[buttmonkey]

Donas, on 19 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The current run-speed is out there, for sure. Though for the first 4 seconds or so after striking a crippled leg, your mech limps at an appallingly slow rate. (which I believe it should.) I can see where they were going with it, since you still have one good leg, but I dont know anyone that can hop at have their bipedal speed. 25% speed would probably be more resaonable. (and that remaining leg should probably be taking damage slowly over time if it moves, since its taking a pounding just by hopping)

I believe part of the disparity between the two (torso destruction and leg destruction) is in the representation of it. Your mechs leg hasn't been blown off. Its been 'destroyed' in that it no longer serves any more purpose than a crutch or peg leg. Its internal structure seems to assume that beyond the statistical value where function degrades as it takes damage there is another assumed mechanical stability provided by the twisted material that remains. Further pouring damage into that leg, through damage transfer does destroy the mech. Is this because the bullets and missiles are scooped up through a funnel and aimed into the internals of the mech body? nope. I believe this damage mechanic to merely be the representation of that last bit of assumed structure being finally cut to bits, and the mech being rendered completely inneffective (ie, leg now actually blown off, and combat inneffective, laying on the ground, which is where it winds up)

As an extension to this, a further disparity comes from the comarison between legs and torsos. As a torso has something hanging off of it providing load, where the leg does not. It has the weight of the mech on it, obviously, but my theory above accounts for that scenario. What I mean is that the leg has nothing hanging of of it. And while the argument could reasonably be made that the torso would also take this into account (ie, its structure is built to support the weight of a limb) there hasnt been any representation in game visually or otherwise that this 'assumed additional structure' exists. The point that some have made that all of the control wiring and whatnot were destroyed with the torso also bears merit. Also, if a Hatchetman has its arm destroyed, which is represented by it coming off, I don't believe we'd be having this conversation about retaining the hatchet. It also is my belief that the torso elements are not going to be as beefy as the legs, since they dont carry anywhere near the weight nor see remotely the same stresses that the legs must.

What would be cool, in my opinion, was that if sometimes when the torso got blown out with something other than explosive weapons, that the torso section would collapse but hang on, leaving the arm dangling at some unnatural angle similar to that of person with their shoulder out of the socket. Weapons nonfunctional, but you could still shield with it in a rudimentary form.

That, and heavily nerfing wrecked leg travel speeds.

ok you make some good points, so explain to me why your torso blows off 100% of the time taking your am with it but your legs magically hang in there 100% of the time, they never come off

i like the last suggestion btw it could fix this issue

Edited by buttmonkey, 19 April 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Donas]

buttmonkey, on 19 April 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

why would it even fall over? do you fall over when you lift up one leg? its entirely feasable to have the mech just remain immobile.

True that. They have great big gyros to keep em upright. and while in the good cinematics (as well as real world robotics) the mechs shift their center of balance to the standing leg when lifting the other to move, this could certainly keep a stationary mech upright.

I seem to remember (way back when, maybe MW2) that a stationary mech getting a leg shot off stood in place, but a moving one fell down. Or maybe it just ground to a halt. I forget. Does anyone else remember?

buttmonkey, on 19 April 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

ok you make some good points, so explain to me why your torso blows off 100% of the time taking your am with it but your legs magically hang in there 100% of the time, they never come off

i like the last suggestion btw it could fix this issue

the post just above this question. I'm pretty sure we were typing at the same time. lol

[Corvus Antaka]

veri745, on 16 April 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Do you also think your own hand should still work after someone cuts off your arm?

Man, I wish!