318 replies to this topic

[Daekar]

TexAss, on 03 October 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

it would share armor and internal hitpoints with the center torso. Like its also sharing the space in the center torsos slots.

A gyro takes up 4 of the 12 slots in a center torso.
So it would take 1/3 or armor points and 1/3 of internal points.
Together with the proposed hitbox change in the torso it would be perfect.

So you're saying don't extend the leg hitboxes into the pelvis, leave that the CT, and add a whole bunch of {Scrap} that happens when that particular part of the CT gets shot up? That seems counterproductive.

[Caladus]

Just ran through the first couple of contract missions in MW2 Mercenaries and blowing off one leg doesn't kill a mech. They try and use their torso mounted jump jets to get at me if I let them. Two legs, however, did mark the mech as destroyed. So in so far as the older games go just 1 leg didn't kill you.

Just have to be careful about all those ammo explosions. Don't want to ruin my salvage.

[Soltic]

Very thoughtful, but not very logical. If both legs are broken and/or fused, how would a mech go from horizontal to vertical? It's almost weird enough that the mech can saunter around with one "destroyed" leg, as it is. How can a mech lift a leg if the other is missing or otherwise can't hold any weight? Movement *should* be limited to jump jets only if a leg is missing, but I can understand how this can hurt gameplay.

Also, these hit boxes don't make any sense. How would only the outside of a section be considered part of an entirely different section? They would lead more players to using STD engines, which would reduce the range of builds for several chassis because "lucky" (or well aimed from an undetected vantage point) shots would hit a now much larger section with less overall armor, causing an even quicker death for an XL. Not to mention this would also lead to a player losing a large amount of their potential armament which makes people sad because of less "pew pew".

The actual problem is armor value/restrictions. The amount of armor on a build should be an actual choice, and if a player was willing to sacrifice armament or speed to bulk up on protection, they should be able to. If a player feels that a certain part is too exposed, they should be able to pile on "extra" armor there. AKA, it shouldn't be so "easy" to cap out armor everywhere and shave off a few points in the legs if you need that extra half ton for things to fit right, for example. Armor should have more value per point, but be heavier, which would cause typical builds to not cap out on every section. And FF should just add a multiplier instead of shaving an inconsequential amount of weight. Altering the weight of armor would likely require changes made to the weight of other components too; most notably, engines.

[General Taskeen]

Soltic, on 03 October 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Also, these hit boxes don't make any sense. How would only the outside of a section be considered part of an entirely different section? They would lead more players to using STD engines, which would reduce the range of builds for several chassis because "lucky" (or well aimed from an undetected vantage point) shots would hit a now much larger section with less overall armor, causing an even quicker death for an XL.

So in other words, XL is your crutch. News flash, Innersphere XL's have a huge weakness.

But anyways, you realize this is how hitboxes basically were in other Mech warrior games right? If you were presented the "side" of a Mech, it didn't matter if what you thought you were shooting was the "CT" because an area that sticks out. You were hitting the side torso, because twisting to spread damage was a thing in those games. And they even allowed you to aim 90 degrees so you could fire the entire time you were just presenting your torso. That's how you a balance a Mech Warrior game, based on a board game where you randomly hit sections of a Mech, even if your miniatures looked a certain way in 3-Dimensions, into a first person shooter where you pin-point aim those armor sections in real time.

The whole point is to allow Mechs to survive longer. An IS XL is supposed to be a risk and a gamble, until IS LFE's are available.

And bonus, I could use my Standard engine in an Orion or Awesome and not die from being Center Torso Cored, while presenting my side to an enemy. Hmm, imagine that.

Edited by General Taskeen, 03 October 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[TexAce]

Daekar, on 03 October 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

So you're saying don't extend the leg hitboxes into the pelvis, leave that the CT, and add a whole bunch of {Scrap} that happens when that particular part of the CT gets shot up?  That seems counterproductive.

the thing is though, that you still reduce the size of the actual engine, which makes it hard to actually kill the mech, if you destroy the gyro, you are not dead, just crippled. After you destroy the gyro, you can shoot it as long as you want, it won't do anything. Like shooting an already destroyed leg.

This idea is not new, its actually something PGI planned all along time just didn't realise yet. I say they should finally implement it. No more easy crotch shots to kill an atlas, or any other mech. It expands TTK.

Edited by TexAss, 03 October 2013 - 06:39 PM.

[Soltic]

"Because it was in other games" doesn't make it make sense and it also isn't a very good argument. This is MWO, not TT, not MW2/3/4. Shooting the side of something doesn't mean you aren't actually shooting the side of it, in a realistic sense. The concept of these proposed changes lends itself to torso twisting as a skill, and that's not a bad thing. But, it makes twisting as a skill "the new meta" since everyone would be able to charge into a battle head on and do the twist until one side is dead. It demotes the use of tactics which are normally quite important to current gameplay. AKA, this would make MWO a bulletspongy FPS as long as players got the rhythm between twisting and shooting.

Also, how do you derive that XL is my crutch? I wasn't aware that XL was to be frowned upon as an additional option to avoid cookie cutter builds of everyone using smaller weapons and STDs. Furthermore, perhaps if an XL is so inferior, it shouldn't cost so much more than a STD of the same size.

If players had a more meaningful and varied choice when it comes to their armor loudout, it would help solve your woes of death by side shot while increasing options for more varied (and interesting) gameplay.

[Soltic]

TexAss, on 03 October 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

the thing is though, that you still reduce the size of the actual engine, which makes it hard to actually kill the mech, if you destroy the gyro, you are not dead, just crippled. After you destroy the gyro, you can shoot it as long as you want, it won't do anything. Like shooting an already destroyed leg.

If you destroy the component that is actually stabilizing an object that is not fixed to a surface and is taller than it is wide, that object is going to topple over. I can't imagine spending half of a game staring at the sky or the ground to be very interesting, unfortunately.

[TexAce]

Soltic, on 03 October 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

If you destroy the component that is actually stabilizing an object that is not fixed to a surface and is taller than it is wide, that object is going to topple over. I can't imagine spending half of a game staring at the sky or the ground to be very interesting, unfortunately.

who says we have to go the uber-realistic route in a sci-fi space magic fps???
You don't topple over when someone shoots off your leg, do you?

Edited by TexAss, 03 October 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[Soltic]

Touche, Tex. But it seems, to me, that adding more "stuff" and imposing complicated changes is simply unnecessary, when a lot of current woes regarding this type of argument could be eased by a few minor alterations to the way armor works.

And you don't topple over at the loss of a single leg because the gyro would still be intact. The mystifying part, in the case of the missing leg, is how a mech can still walk.

Edited by Soltic, 03 October 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[TexAce]

Soltic, on 03 October 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

And you don't topple over at the loss of a single leg because the gyro would still be intact.

no, we don't topple over and are still able to move with a destroyed leg because PGI choose to not blast the whole leg off like it does with arms. It just was a decision.
The decision to have engine crits and damaged gyro effects was made long time ago but never implemented because they don't have half of the game finished yet. But it will come.

Edited by TexAss, 03 October 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[Soltic]

I'm quite interested to see how gyro damage would be implemented, if it ever is. Could be some interesting mechanics involved in twisting and waving arms to try to remain upright.

Oh, and in an effort to stay kind of sort of on topic... I would like for them to consider the size of the model and hitboxes based on the volume of the actual mech, considering shape and weight, not necessarily class. Because, right now, some mechs are waaaaaay too big for the amount of stuff they are made of.

Edited by Soltic, 03 October 2013 - 07:24 PM.

[Mahws]

Sold on all accounts.

I run XL in a bunch of my mechs, Dragons and Awesomes in particular benefit from them because losing a side torso is a once in a blue moon occurrence. If anything I wouldn't be surprised if increased side torso sizes actually helped XL Dragons, as is they take such little side torso damage that they barely soak any damage at all. And even if they did it wouldn't 'kill' XL mechs, I use XL engines in most of my Jager builds despite them having side torsos the size of most light mechs. It would just turn them into a decision rather than a necessity.

As for the legs, I'm all for it. I don't see it meaningfully effecting light mechs, the increase in hitbox size is minimal (especially when close up). And it might actually result in people putting more than 40 points of leg armour on an assault.

As for the realism thing, well the legs are getting 'damaged' not 'destroyed'. Same deal we have now with the first leg. I'll take a little extra suspension of disbelief if it makes for better gameplay. Heck it makes more sense than the current system where apparently all of a mechs weapons go offline when they go horizontal.

[Sh4nk0h0l1c]

I'd love to see this on the test servers...

@PGI please give it a try, adjusting hitboxes cant be that time consuming...

[ceeon]

AWSOME THREAD ...............

THANK YOu .. for constructive way ........

It would be worth every euro .. every legendary founder .. every phoenix overlord package ...

if your hitboxed would be on the testing server ......

Please PGI please IGP .... give it a try


Please community .. tell it your friends .. lets do a petition ..

give that hitboxes a try .. before further weapon tweaks ........

[Team Leader]

This isnt in game yet?! Come on PGI get a move on!

[Gray 46rus]

where to sign?

[ceeon]

i think we can just get some attention when we all follow this thread and tell our friends and other players of this Topic ...

Would be just nice to check out this hitboxes on test server ... that we could feel it .. and judge .....

i follow ..

[Clint Steel]

Nice post.
---Some have said this already, but I would like to see legged mechs actually have their legs blown off. The remaining leg could be used to steady the mech slowly lowering it to the ground. Perhaps an ability to use the one leg to jump to move forward and turn, but very limited movement. A mech with fully articulated arms could use them to help move forward at the cost of shooting with them. If both legs were blown off you might be able to balance on your remaining torso, but have no movement, unless you had both arms (fully articulated).

--- Seems there is a lot they can do with the actuators and joints crit points, if they added functionality to them.

[Carrioncrows]

Clint Steel, on 04 October 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Nice post.
---Some have said this already, but I would like to see legged mechs actually have their legs blown off. The remaining leg could be used to steady the mech slowly lowering it to the ground. Perhaps an ability to use the one leg to jump to move forward and turn, but very limited movement. A mech with fully articulated arms could use them to help move forward at the cost of shooting with them. If both legs were blown off you might be able to balance on your remaining torso, but have no movement, unless you had both arms (fully articulated).

--- Seems there is a lot they can do with the actuators and joints crit points, if they added functionality to them.

Blowing a leg off (though definitely would look cool) isn't conductive to a fair and balanced game.

The thing is, is that PGI has taken a different path when it comes to destroying leg locations. Rather than having the limb being blown off, instead it is akin to getting a car getting it's tire destroyed.

Sure you can drive on the rim, but not nearly as fast or as well as if the leg wasn't destroyed.

Suffice to say the leg isn't destroyed, merely ruined which would allow you to talk on it a in a limited fashion.

Some might point out that with enough damage you could indeed snap the leg off, but due to the way damage transfers you will end up killing a mechs engine before that happens.

Either way the idea behind having both legs not kill you is to promote people trying to kill the engine and intentional targeting of the legs be a tactical decision on the players part rather than Plan A.

Sort of like how people intentionally aim for a mechs arm rather than a CT to help them gain a tactical advantage even though it's not directly killing that mech.

Like taking YLW's arm off to take his 20 off instead of just trying to kill his ct? Why because during the time it would take to kill him that 20 is going to put big holes in you. Same sort of tactical shooting should apply against other opponents when targeting a mechs legs.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Why does shooting one leg out reduce the mech to perm 50% speed reduction, but then shooting out the second leg increases it back up to only 15% speed reduction?