318 replies to this topic

[Mahws]

Reduced to not by.

One leg = capped at 50% of top speed.
Both legs = capped at 15% of top speed.

[Carrioncrows]

Mahws, on 05 October 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Reduced to not by.

One leg = capped at 50% of top speed.
Both legs = capped at 15% of top speed.

What he said.

[Volthorne]

Mahws, on 05 October 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Reduced to not by.

One leg = capped at 50% of top speed.
Both legs = capped at 15% of top speed.

That makes no sense. If you lose both of YOUR legs, I would think that it's probably in your best interest to not move around as much as possible, and maybe accidentally further injure yourself (this is actually mirrored in TT rules, where a 'Mech that loses one leg can move one hex at a time, and losing both make you immobile, albeit still able to shoot by propping up your torso on one arm).

Edited by Volthorne, 05 October 2013 - 04:07 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Volthorne, on 05 October 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

That makes no sense. If you lose both of YOUR legs, I would think that it's probably in your best interest to not move around as much as possible, and maybe accidentally further injure yourself (this is actually mirrored in TT rules, where a 'Mech that loses one leg can move one hex at a time, and losing both make you immobile, albeit still able to shoot by propping up your torso on one arm).

As it happens, the official errata for BT states:
"A ’Mech that loses both of its legs cannot move. If it wasn't prone, it automatically falls and has 0 MP available. The MechWarrior automatically takes damage from this fall. It cannot change hexsides or attempt to stand. It can still attempt to prop itself up to fire if it has both arms."

So, what happens in the case of something like the Jenner, Raven, or Stalker - that is, those 'Mechs that don't really have much in the way of arms, much less something with which they could prop themselves up?
Shall they simply continue firing their weapons impotently in whatever direction the torso ultimately ends up facing, waiting for someone to happen along and put them out of their misery?

For those 'Mechs that do have actuated arms, what keyboard/mouse/joystick control scheme would be proposed and/or workable with regard to having the 'Mech prop itself up?
If such a 'Mech then loses its actuated arm(s), it is then in the same situation as the legless 'Mech that had no actuated arms to begin with...

Why not then have legless 'Mechs counted as a mission kill ("An attack or damage inflicted by a weapon that does not destroy a military vehicle but results in it taking no further part in its intended mission") - which is essentially what the current MWO system does, anyway?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 05 October 2013 - 05:07 PM.

[Vercinaigh]

Not too shabby looking, honestly, good job. But keep in mind reality with net play, HSR will not be able to keep track of hit boxes accurately if they are -too- small, AKA head hitboxes so small you can never intentionally shoot them, ever.

[Carrioncrows]

Strum Wealh, on 05 October 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

***

Simply put. Because it's a video game.

I love battletech. Love it.

This isn't battle tech, it's MWO.

MWO is Piranha's interpretation of Battletech / mechwarrior. They have free reign to change things as they see fit. So if we are going to change things, lets change them for the "BETTER"

Legs are not destroyed in MWO, only ruined. So once both of of your legs are Ruined you fall over, and then get back up and you are reduced to 15% of your top speed.

This is to let light mechs live just a little bit longer and throw a dose of common sense into the way killing happens.

This way legging a mech is no longer the best way to kill some mechs (lights, some mediums, jumpers), instead legging may help you kill it, like taking the YLW's arm off helps you stay alive longer but it doesn't automatically put the other mech with a death sentence just a tactical disadvantage. He can still fight and retaliate.

Easy to crack, hard to kill.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 05 October 2013 - 05:49 PM.

[SleepnGiant]

Make it so. I like the hit box ideas. It will make matches last much longer and damage go up. And my awesome might last a bit longer. Sounds good to me. Im down with the legs idea. Maybe even less than 15% imo/.

[GalaxyBluestar]

the thing about BT vs MECHWARRIOR is that ultimately the particular version of mechwarrior that feels most like BT is usually the best one. to be exactly like BT is not possible for a realtime simulator so rules can't be strict but the sim must give as best as possible an representation, atmosphere, feeling of the lore's combat enviroment. That is why i like this idea over the cone of fire stuff.

because pilot gunnery accuracy couldn't be represented anyother way in a TT game other than a random draw system {cards or dice etc} which can't happen in any realtime computer game... other than dice and card game sims. random draw games can't happen in direct imput games such as FPS, tactical games or sims. that's why cone of fire should be a last resort if anything because it's an auto 50/50 computer controled mechanic which won't be recieved well from people making imputs/commands to do with direct controls in this SIM/FPS. so change the other end, give the chance to hit rate on the target a shake up instead of the gunners controls. that's why i like this idea it won't punish me if i'm good enough to hit a small box but that size has to be as such that on average it can only bit hit so often which gives us the BT random hit representation and also rewards good shots without letting them run rampant easily to ruin the tough tank appeal of mech piloting.

[Booom3]

So how are you going to reasonably explain this to a new player?
Say someone jumps in to the game, shoots the torso from just a little bit to the side and suddenly it doesn't count as a hit to the torso anymore?

It doesn't make sense. You can't put nonsensical changes like this just because you want a bit more balance to the game. Things in a game don't have to be realistic but they should make sense. If you hit the torso then the torso should take damage.
Your ideas are sound but this solution is completely unreasonable.

[Carrioncrows]

Booom3, on 06 October 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

So how are you going to reasonably explain this to a new player?
Say someone jumps in to the game, shoots the torso from just a little bit to the side and suddenly it doesn't count as a hit to the torso anymore?

It doesn't make sense. You can't put nonsensical changes like this just because you want a bit more balance to the game. Things in a game don't have to be realistic but they should make sense. If you hit the torso then the torso should take damage.
Your ideas are sound but this solution is completely unreasonable.

Two things:

1. Point out what mech doesn't make sense with the new hitboxes. That If I shoot them in a certain location that it doesn't automatically make sense that they take damage in that location.

2. What doesn't make sense is hitting a mech in the crotch and doing damage to the CT, even though they are torso twisted away from me.

[Strum Wealh]

Carrioncrows, on 05 October 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Simply put. Because it's a video game.

I love battletech. Love it.

This isn't battle tech, it's MWO.

MWO is Piranha's interpretation of Battletech / mechwarrior. They have free reign to change things as they see fit. So if we are going to change things, lets change them for the "BETTER"

Legs are not destroyed in MWO, only ruined. So once both of of your legs are Ruined you fall over, and then get back up and you are reduced to 15% of your top speed.

This is to let light mechs live just a little bit longer and throw a dose of common sense into the way killing happens.

This way legging a mech is no longer the best way to kill some mechs (lights, some mediums, jumpers), instead legging may help you kill it, like taking the YLW's arm off helps you stay alive longer but it doesn't automatically put the other mech with a death sentence just a tactical disadvantage. He can still fight and retaliate.

Easy to crack, hard to kill.

My comment was originally addressed specifically to Volthorne, as a further comment on his(?) statement.

For the three-way comparison...
BattleTech/"TT":

• Destruction/breaking/ruination of one leg limits the 'Mech to hobbling/limping along ~10-11 kph (one 30-meter hex per 10-second turn) and being unstable (e.g. more prone to falling), following a knockdown.
  
• Destruction/breaking/ruination of both legs renders the 'Mech grounded and immobile (may raise itself on (actuated) arms, if applicable).

Current MWO:

• Destruction/breaking/ruination of one leg limits the 'Mech to hobbling/limping along at the slower of either 50% of top speed or 40 kph (per the map-screen MOTD).
  
• Destruction/breaking/ruination of both legs renders the 'Mech incapable of further combat operations (that is, the 'Mech is essentially designated as a "mission kill").

Current Thread Proposal ("CTP"):

• Destruction/breaking/ruination of one leg limits the 'Mech to hobbling/limping along at 50% of top speed, following a 5-second period at 15% of top speed.
  
• Destruction/breaking/ruination of both legs limits the 'Mech to hobbling/limping along at 15% of top speed, following a knockdown.

Frankly, the CTP is far too lenient with regard to the destruction/breaking/ruination of a single leg; as an example, a 'Mech right at the current speed cap (~150 kph) that loses a leg would still be able to move at ~75 kph (that is, still about as fast - or, in many cases, still faster - than the majority of 'Mechs that still have both legs).
The loss of a leg should be an extremely severe penalty for all 'Mechs, and PGI (for all their other mistakes and imperfections) have used a methodology that better serves this purpose than the CTP.

As a potential alternative to the loss of both legs resulting in a "mission kill", the destruction/breaking/ruination of both legs could result in a penalty mechanically similar to, but of greater degrees than, that which PGI has implemented for the loss of a single leg: limit the 'Mech to hobbling/limping along at the slower of either 15% of top speed or 15 kph.

[General Taskeen]

Strum, how about the ultimate suggestion, fully articulated arm controls.

*gets legs shot out*

"I'm not done yet you bast**rds!" - General Samsonov Taskeen shouts over open radio frequency

*raises Mech up on one arm and fires*

"Yeah, FOR THE GENERAL!"

*An Awesome and Hunchback charge the line*





Anyways, can I haz good hitboxes plox PGI?

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

Good job on the hitboxes!
But I do not agree on your point of destroying legs not being deadly. Actually, loosing a leg is a serious business and is already treated in MWO too lightly in comparison to TT.
In TT losing a leg causes your mech to painfully fall to the ground and then make piloting checks trying to get up at all, with every failure further damaging your mech. If you managed to get up, you have a reduced speed and any attempt to run promises you a big chance of falling. Also, any other piloting checks will be handicapped.
And you propose making the destruction of both legs a mere nuisance?) It's totally illogical and counter-immersive! The way legging is done in MWO now is pretty nice and playable, I wouldn't touch it with a 20 meter stick.

But still a great job with marking thinking man'***** boxes.

[Strum Wealh]

General Taskeen, on 06 October 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Strum, how about the ultimate suggestion, fully articulated arm controls.

*gets legs shot out*

"I'm not done yet you bast**rds!" - General Samsonov Taskeen shouts over open radio frequency

*raises Mech up on one arm and fires*

"Yeah, FOR THE GENERAL!"

*An Awesome and Hunchback charge the line*

Anyways, can I haz good hitboxes plox PGI?

In all fairness, I generally agree with most of CC's ideas on hitbox allocation (at least in principle, if not in detail).

It just happens that I disagree with some of the particulars of CC's stance and proposal with regard to what should happen upon the destruction/breaking/ruination of one or both legs.

[Orodain]

This guy should be making up all the rules for this game. The hit boxes and proposed changes really are gold.


Pgi wont change a thing, game makers today pander to the lowest common denominator to make money.

[Peter2000]

I agree. Except for the first bit about not killing 'Mechs when double-legged. That's not a problem, and encourages people not to strip all their leg armor.

[Carrioncrows]

Peter2000, on 07 October 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

I agree. Except for the first bit about not killing 'Mechs when double-legged. That's not a problem, and encourages people not to strip all their leg armor.

Reorganizing the hitboxes would end up making the legs slightly bigger targets.

And in the case of a raven a bit bigger hitboxes.

The changes for the legs are really to just improve the quality of play for both jumpjet mechs and lights. Once you lose a leg it's a death sentence. And with the proposed changes loosing a leg may still be a death sentence, but at least this way you get those few extra moments to unleash your fury.

[Mahws]

For a light mech being capped at 15% of your move speed (around 20kp/h) would be pretty much equal to being killed instantly. For heavier mechs it wouldn't be instant death, but you'd be pretty much out of the fight and a sitting duck for the enemy. A legged assualt would move at ~10kp/h, if that's not an incentive to keep your leg armour on I'm not sure what is.

Edit:
Wait. What. I have no idea what he was trying to say.

Edited by Mahws, 07 October 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Unbalanced hit boxes made some mechs noncompetitive. This is a balance issue and should be sorted out just like any other bug.
I want to see more Awesomes and Dragons in the 12vs12 mode!

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 October 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[stjobe]

General Taskeen, on 06 October 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

*gets legs shot out*

"I'm not done yet you bast**rds!" - General Samsonov Taskeen shouts over open radio frequency

*raises Mech up on one arm and fires*

"Yeah, FOR THE GENERAL!"

*An Awesome and Hunchback charge the line*

Who the hell put the General in a Hermes in the first place?