66 replies to this topic

[Caballo]

jezebel, on 14 November 2011 - 09:05 PM, said:

Not true - Sirlin does not encourage cheating.
He does, however, encourage performing to the absolute pinnacle within the established rules of the given game. He encourages constant improvement, and he encourages avoiding stagnation/plateauing. What is not respectable about trying to constantly improve in everything you attempt?

I guess this deviates from the legging/disabling discussion ... sortof. But the "legging/disablement" debate has been in this community so long that it's become inseparable from the "fair play" discussion.

I think that there are two kinds of gamers.
- players who try to operate to their maximum potential (IE, win). This is how they have fun.
- players who expect others to handicap themselves, within a mental construct of additional rules. These people only have fun if others play within those imaginary rules.
Edit: Maybe there's a third. The "I don't care, just let me shoot stuff" gamer.

Both of them have lives. Both of them have fun playing their chosen game.
One of them wins.

I don't mean to be a firebrand, here. I'm just saying - today, it's legging. I'm sure if the devs fix the ancient mythical "legging problem," a new topic will crop up to kvetch about. Maybe cat-napping. Maybe sniping. Maybe looking at your opponent cross-eyed. All I'm trying to say is, whatever ends up happening, play the game to your pinnacle. Don't make up imaginary "fair/honorable" rules to hold against anyone who is successful.

I guess Mr. Sirlin never thought (or maybe he thought about it a lot...) that there are flaws in every video game such as our discussion fact: blowing up the legs of a mech always had been easy in MW games, and gaining an advantage throught one of those flaws is called "Exploiting a bug"... which, if you want to keep a healthy, numerous, and ENTERTAINED crew, isn't the best way to achieve. let's see:

You and me find each other in the battlefield.

ROUND 1: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
ROUND 2: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
ROUND 3: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you Disconnect.

So... I win and you lose, and we both keep our lives... but you didn't had any fun for sure. So you get into another match vs. another fighter who knows your mechanics as well as i did, and it goes the same, and a third time... and then you uninstall the game, and forget about it. The community had lost a possible member because three smart guys wants to win at all costs, which is what David Sirlin preaches: If you want to have fun with a videogame, YOU HAVE TO WIN... well... i don't think so.

You get that fun you're talking about by accepting challenges... and having a chance of winning. If there's no way to win for someone who just reached the game, because all and every older player knows your legs are fluffy... you're not staying in the game. And soon, you'll had a whole universe filled up with... nobody. You may look at it as Mr. Sirlin, and think it's not your fault: They should've been smarter and get into YOUR mechanics: Exploiting the bug... But as none of them did, you, and your folks, left the virtual universe deserted, because in fact you didn't wanted to have fun, you just wanted to win.


Just as a footnote, when I incidentally blow someone else's leg with an alpha strike by mistake, i always say "Sorry". I don't like it when it happens to me. I know it's an easy way to dust my opponent, but we both know it's not the way to have a crude, hard and, avobe all, FUNNY Dogfight. It is just a way to put another mark into your cockpit, But it's not funny.
Of course i understand that's my way of having fun, and of course you don't have to share it, but I don't have to share yours neither. So, if that's the case, let me know what servers you play, just to not get into, because i'm not going to have fun fighting versus you. Sorry.

That's my point. And OF COURSE i didn't got you for a flamer. Until now we're having a simple conversation in which we don't see the thing from the same point of view. Respect

Edited by Caballo, 14 November 2011 - 10:15 PM.

[jezebel]

Yep, definitely gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

[CaveMan]

MagnusEffect, on 14 November 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

well what if they just made the legs as tough (maybe just a bit tougher than before?) as the center torso? that way it doesn't make legging someone any easier than killing them outright. then you only have to deal with legging in terms of people just really wanting you not going anywhere (or maybe if you are hiding your CT).

Sounds good. Multiply the armor/structure on the legs by about 1.3 and you've eliminated an unintentional weak point (the head remains a legitimate target because it's a very small hitbox. The leg on some designs can be as big as the torso itself, making it a naturally more attractive target)

Quote

I still think that the 1 leg dead = limping, 2 legs dead = immobilization is the best option though. On average, I think it is easier to just core the CT than shoot both legs off if all you are trying to do is kill them (especially if destroying both legs still leaves them alive and able to shoot back).

As long as "immobilization" means "can't move" and not "fall over on your face and wait for a mercy-killing" like in MW2 Mercs or "you get auto-ejected for some unexplained reason". I would rather see the 'Mech fall to its knees, unable to walk, with the torso remaining upright as long as the gyro is functioning. Of course, you're a sitting duck at that point but at least you can go down swinging.

Note on the gyro: It's a chunk of spinning metal weighing between one and four tons. That's a LOOOOOT of angular momentum to overcome. The 'Mech will not fall over easily even if its leg actuators fail.
A magician called P.T. Selbit used to tour with a gadget called the "Mighty Cheese" which was a big metal gyroscope contained inside a fake wheel of cheese. Even professional strongmen could not knock the "cheese" over throwing their entire bodyweight against it, because the gyro inside produced so much resistance.

[Kudzu]

If you make it a lot harder to go after specific points on a mech you'll see the crying about going after legs dry up a bit.

In my pretend land of the perfect sim game a mech wouldn't be counted as destroyed unless the engine, cit, or head was gone. In the TT even if you lost a leg you had a chance to stand back up and "hop" around one hex a turn, I think that could be brought in easily (maybe skilling up piloting would make this easier and let you hop a little faster in addition to anything else it does for you). If both legs or your gyro were destroyed I'd like to see the option for a mech to "sit up" and become a pillbox that could still torso twist.

[garrett]

Caballo, on 14 November 2011 - 09:46 PM, said:

blowing up the legs of a mech always had been easy in MW games, and gaining an advantage throught one of those flaws is called "Exploiting a bug"

That's not what "exploit" means in the context of gaming: as Wikipedia puts it, an exploit is "the use of a bug or design flaw ... in a manner not intended by the game's designers". The legs have always been a widely-known weakness in the MechWarrior games but the designers of each sequel have left it in place for whatever reason, each time implementing the results of legging in a slightly different way (as already covered in this poll), which means it is neither unintentional nor a bug; much like going for headshots in an on-foot FPS attacking these weak points for massive damage may well be considered cheap, but it isn't an exploit.

Edited by garrett, 14 November 2011 - 11:22 PM.

[Caballo]

Ok, give me five minutes to edit Wikipedia so it says what I want it to say.

Anyway... what reason do you find to keep that issue (known worldwide) in the game?
I just think that part of the games is simply wrongly designed.

Tho going for the head in an FPS (like in mechwarrior games) is to me very much harder than aiming at the torso, just by a matter of size. Also it's logical a single bullet in the head kills a character, but on to the torso or the legs it doesn't. But we never aim for the head in MW... We go for the legs...

Edited by Caballo, 14 November 2011 - 11:49 PM.

[CaveMan]

garrett, on 14 November 2011 - 11:21 PM, said:

That's not what "exploit" means in the context of gaming: as Wikipedia puts it, an exploit is "the use of a bug or design flaw ... in a manner not intended by the game's designers". The legs have always been a widely-known weakness in the MechWarrior games but the designers of each sequel have left it in place for whatever reason, each time implementing the results of legging in a slightly different way (as already covered in this poll), which means it is neither unintentional nor a bug; much like going for headshots in an on-foot FPS attacking these weak points for massive damage may well be considered cheap, but it isn't an exploit.

Except trying to get headshots in any game is a harder shot to make than just shooting center of mass, while in MW games the legs frequently have as large or larger of a target cross section as the torso (stormcrow and nova come to mind, their torsos are tiny compared to their legs), often times making the shot easier.

[Seth]

At this rate Magnus, I think Gallup will extend a job offer to you soon.

[Max Liao]

What if they just randomized (ala the board game) or used an ever improving reticule cone for targeting to simulate the craptastic targeting of the BattleTech universe. Use the critical roll system of the board game, and when you suffer 2 Gyro hits, 3 Engine hits, etc you're out. Buh bye. Some tweaks would have to be made in the math to afford more subtle and longer progression, but it would work out just the same.

These discussions about legging and Mr. Sirlin (which is often considered griefing in my book), et al are great discussions for Battlefield, MMOs like Shadowbane or Age of Conan, and the like, but BattleTech has already been screwed over by the twitch implementation of the MechWarrior series. The MechWarrior games did not follow the model of the tabletop game, sourcebook canon, or the novels in regard to how 'Mech combat 'feels.' It was simply a simulation of giant human piloted mecha, not BattleTech (in anything but name).

Pardon me for ranting ... I'm really not wanting to flame or antagonize ... but with all of these threads and posts about trying to make 'Mechs free, with pinpoint/twitch combat, indestructible, etc. That's not BattleTech ... and shouldn't be MechWarrior. It's frustrating to someone like me, wants dearly to see the BattleTech universe come alive, to see it cheapened into a simple FPS - he with the fastest mouse/joystick wins.

Yes, I am one of those crazy role-players who believe that canon/lore trumps what the masses want. Sure, it sounds like a horrible business model (and it usually is); however, BattleTech has such a good following, and I am 100% certain that even the 'MechWarrior fans would enjoy the more random (or should I say more tactical?) combat (all but the most hardened twitch player). The player base would more likely be larger, because the casual player can play and compete, if his/her tactics are sound.

To me it's more exciting when I have to roll that "4" to hit the right arm - [to take out the PPC that's been hurting me - *shakes the dice ... and ... rolls a 9* DANG! Left leg!] - than to see who can hop/twitch better. Admittedly, and I've stated this in other threads, I suck at twitch gaming. I have great situational awareness, which is why I excel at MMOs and I'm a fairly solid tactical gamer (though I WILL handicap myself if it means sticking to canon/lore). If you want players like me - the silent majority who are not good at twitch games, but would love to play them more often - then you have to give us a reason to play ... to have fun ... to feel as though we can compete. As stated above, by Cabalo:

• ROUND 1: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
  
• ROUND 2: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
  
• ROUND 3: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you Disconnect.

This might be fun for one person, but it's not fun for most and doesn't provide for a long term and ever growing community.

BattleTech is about randomness, skilling up to improve chances of success, and battlefield tactics. It's not about who can aim their reticule faster while hopping up and down behind a hill, legging, or 'circle of death.' Since the FAQ even states that they are going to stay close to the tabletop version of the game, this is an area about which I feel very strongly and passionately.

People have to understand that the targeting computers of the 31st century BattleTech universe, even when compared to 21st century technology, suck. THAT is BattleTech ... anything else is just Rock'em Sock'em Robots online.

[CaveMan]

Heh, if you add in anything random, the dice-haters will scream bloody murder.

Personally I'd just like to see the cockpit bouncing around so much when you move and get hit, fire recoil-intensive weapons, etc. that pinpoint shooting requires either A) serious skill or B.) serious planning, or C) both.

Edited by CaveMan, 15 November 2011 - 12:36 AM.

[MagnusEffect]

Seth, on 14 November 2011 - 11:53 PM, said:

At this rate Magnus, I think Gallup will extend a job offer to you soon.

lols (who is Gallup?) to actually be "on the team" for this? oh man, i wish

back on topic: all very good points guys. also, someone mentioned earlier (I forgot who exactly... sorry) that a big part of the issue is the legs are commonly as big if not bigger targets than the CT a lot of the time. This made me think of something else. To put things in perspective:

In the TT, the CT is easily the biggest target. When rolling to determine hit locations you roll 2D6 and refer to a "hit location" table. Guess what a roll of 7 is?: Center torso. Guess what is the most likely number rolled with 2D6?: 7 (think about it... any combination of 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 2+5, or 6+1) When you take into account that rolling snake eyes (1+1) is also a CT hit (and a critical at that). The CT is VERY likely to get hit. My math sucks... what are the odds of rolling a 7 with 2D6? Anyone? In comparison, a right leg is any roll of 5 (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) and Left leg is any roll of 9 (you get the idea) I think.

But what do you see in the MW games? The legs are nearly as easy to hit as the CT... and you can usually choose which one you want to hit. I'm not saying "all things should be as the TT demands it!"... but maybe toughing up the legs *just a little bit* would be a good partial solution (regardless of what you think should happen when one or both are destroyed). Just a thought...

Edited by MagnusEffect, 15 November 2011 - 12:57 AM.

[CaveMan]

MagnusEffect, on 15 November 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

lols (who is Gallup?) to actually be "on the team" for this? oh man, i wish

Gallup is a politics polling company

Quote

My math sucks... what are the odds of rolling a 7 with 2D6? Anyone?

It's about 1 in 4 if I recall. 7 8 and 9 together are close to 50%.

[MagnusEffect]

CaveMan, on 15 November 2011 - 12:59 AM, said:

Gallup is a politics polling company

Doh! Of course! I'm a dummy. I was thinking that was someone's tag

[garrett]

Caballo, on 14 November 2011 - 11:42 PM, said:

Anyway... what reason do you find to keep that issue (known worldwide) in the game?

To clarify, I was not taking a stance on this issue, just explaining that this is not an "exploit" in the gaming sense. Once we get our hands on the beta I'm sure we'll find some real exploits to discuss.

CaveMan, on 15 November 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

Heh, if you add in anything random, the dice-haters will scream bloody murder.

Personally I'd just like to see the cockpit bouncing around so much when you move and get hit, fire recoil-intensive weapons, etc. that pinpoint shooting requires either A) serious skill or B.) serious planning, or C) both.

Abstraction is fine as long as it never contradicts the visual presentation--e.g. if I shoot for the cockpit but the dice say I miss I must not under any circumstances see my attack visually hit the cockpit only to be told that mechanically I hit the shoulder instead--my attack must instead be visually redirected to the shoulder so that the dice and the visuals are in agreement. A lot of the hatred of abstraction is due to developers that make this huge mistake rather than because of the concept itself.

Introducing abstraction also potentially increases the possibility of design flaws, e.g. mathematically favouring hits or misses on a particular part, a mistake that is much harder to make when every shot that lands on that part of the model's hitbox automatically counts as a hit (so as long as its hitbox is correctly sized to match its visual presentation its damage likelihood is fairly balanced).

An alternate possibility is to have no abstraction on damage itself, instead tying accuracy to motion, with the targeting reticle visually changing in size appropriately; shots do guaranteed damage to whatever they hit but could fall anywhere within the radius shown by the reticle, so greater speed and/or distance incur heavy penalties as would any other motion-inducing action like firing weapons, using jump jets or taking damage. Having the reticle show you how accurate your shots will be means you're never left feeling that a shot missed that should have hit, and it also encourages more strategic play since going crazy with weapons and so forth will make each individual hit less likely to land where intended.

[Kudzu]

MagnusEffect, on 15 November 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

lols (who is Gallup?) to actually be "on the team" for this? oh man, i wish

back on topic: all very good points guys. also, someone mentioned earlier (I forgot who exactly... sorry) that a big part of the issue is the legs are commonly as big if not bigger targets than the CT a lot of the time. This made me think of something else. To put things in perspective:

In the TT, the CT is easily the biggest target. When rolling to determine hit locations you roll 2D6 and refer to a "hit location" table. Guess what a roll of 7 is?: Center torso. Guess what is the most likely number rolled with 2D6?: 7 (think about it... any combination of 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 2+5, or 6+1) When you take into account that rolling snake eyes (1+1) is also a CT hit (and a critical at that). The CT is VERY likely to get hit. My math sucks... what are the odds of rolling a 7 with 2D6? Anyone? In comparison, a right leg is any roll of 5 (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1) and Left leg is any roll of 9 (you get the idea) I think.

But what do you see in the MW games? The legs are nearly as easy to hit as the CT... and you can usually choose which one you want to hit. I'm not saying "all things should be as the TT demands it!"... but maybe toughing up the legs *just a little bit* would be a good partial solution (regardless of what you think should happen when one or both are destroyed). Just a thought...

[MagnusEffect]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 01:08 AM, said:

I couldn't get it to load for some reason

[Kudzu]

http://www.thedarkfo..._dice_rolls.htm

[VYCanis]

I like the sitting up idea.

my thinking is lose actuators, start limping, get the leg outright destroyed, you start dragging it at a very slow speed mw4 style (you can imagine this as the "hopping around on 1 foot") Under this circumstance you are very easy to knock over and you can't really jump without immediately collapsing on landing and damaging yourself further. But for the most part, you are still mobile, to an extent.

Lose the other leg though, and the most you can do after eating dirt, is roll over if necessary, sit up and shoot. i.e. the mech equivalent to getting knocked down in left 4 dead, only no one is gonna help you up


However, lets say you survive, assuming there are npc vehicles, maybe you can get an engineering vehicle called in to fix your legs just enough to give you basic minimal movement.

TL-DR legging is a legitimate strategy, but it should only put you down, not out, If someone is willing to put 2 leg destructions worth of damage into you, (which is often 1.5x the damage necessary to core someone out) they earned it.

[zax]

Randomized damage determined by dice rolls works for the TT game because there is no other way to determine where the player hits a mech. Randomized damage does not work for the computer game, because there is a very very simple way to determine where a player hits. While pinpoint accuracy is not necessary, players need to feel like they control what they are aiming at and hitting. A lack of control results in a lack of skill progression, and a lack of skill progression means players get frustrated with randomness and quit.

Legs need at least as much armor as the torso, but saying that players should not have the option to take the legs off their opponent is just silly. In fact, in a game like MW4 that so many purists hate, if two players fight and one of them targets the legs while the other who targets the torso, the torso player will win, and they'll win comfortably. Legging is a situational strategy at best when legs are decently armored.

Quote

• ROUND 1: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
  
• ROUND 2: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you lose.
  
• ROUND 3: I blow your legs with my PPCs from 900 m. in 25 seconds: you Disconnect.

In this example, the solution is... kill your opponent by shooting the torso. If you can't, then you're obviously worse than your opponent, and thus you deserve to lose. What's more, if your opponent has the option to shoot your legs, it implies that you're standing in the open, giving him your whole body as a target.

And that is really the point that this all boils down to. In the TT game and in the lore, a majority of mech combat consists of mechs standing in the open and blowing the **** out of each other. There may be penalties for terrain and speed, but the bottom line is that when it is a players turn, their opponent is stationary on the game board. That is not the case in a real-time game; both players are constantly moving, both players can shoot at each other at the same time and given equal skill, the player who stands out in the open is going to die first.

[corsair]

you guys talk alot about previous MW pc games but if you guys played the table top game or read the books you would remeber that the targeting computers used in the Mechs was terrable for the most part due to the technological dark after the fall of the star league, so leging should not be a possible a problem, cause it will be hard enought o hit the target let alone choose what part you will hit so long as this is taken into account.
also loseing a leg should mean you are stationary you can stand and shoot but without jump jets you cant walk, and useing jump jets my but to much strain on the leg on landing.
I also think that missing two legs should not mean machine destroyed cause you can still reorient your self if you have arms even if you are a torso on the gorund you can still shoot.
lastly i hope that melee is included in the game there is nothing more satisfying there beating an enemy mech to death with its own limb.