66 replies to this topic

[jezebel]

Max Liao, on 15 November 2011 - 12:31 AM, said:

• 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.

I postulate that this cycle of rounds would go quite a different way.

Round 1: You run out in the open with an infighting 'Mech, and your tactical-minded long-ranged opponent shoots your leg to prevent you from getting close.
Round 2: Same thing happens.
Round 3: You either approach with cover all sneaky-like or you decide to fight fire with fire.

If you disconnect out of frustration, that's your fault, not your opponent's. Adapt.

I'm not comfortable with dumbing the play down to the LCD. I'm seeing more and more games lately where the focus is taken away from hard work and skill. I'm going to ask a hard question here: Why is it so wrong for people to be successful? I'm told the legging/fairness issue isn't "about winning" - but if it's not about winning, what is it about? Fairness - You mean, your ability to win. Honor - You mean, your excuse for not winning.

Everyone is capable of playing the game, leg death or no leg death. Some choose not to, and then complain about those who do. I just don't understand it. Put me on record here: If it's not legs, it'll be something else.

[wpmaura]

bunch of little girls in here.

the only solution to this I would agree to would be the idea of a targeting cone, so that not all cross hair hits are 100% on target. In fact this could be part of the whole leveling thing as your gunnery increases the cone shrinks but never pin point.

and perhaps a 1.1 increase down there if that.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I like the Idea of being able to prop myself up with one arm (assuming arms arn't damaged as well) and being able to shoot with the weapons in the other arm, as my torso mounted weapons are probably pointed at the ground. If the maps are set up to avoid big flat open spaces ie rolling hills etc and tactics play a part then you usual will only be able to see legs close up (unless you like standing stiil on hilltops). Close up I'd rather target his torso - damaging weapons, gyro,engine etc If you take out the chance of "destroying" a mech by taking it's leg off ie keep canon. Then you take out the reason for doing it. End of problem.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Also, a 'Mech with two sets of fully functional arm actuators (2 Hands, 2 Lower Arms, 2 Upper Arms and 2 Shoulders) can crawl, unless the Gyro is destroyed. Crawling speed is up to half walking speed (so some 'Mechs can crawl pretty fast).

[Kudzu]

zax, on 15 November 2011 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

Not quite true. Think of each turn as a snapshot taken every 10 seconds.

[Leonardo Monteiro]

I disagree with the possibility of
"Same as previous, but mechs are never truly "destroyed", only more expensive to fix"


Why? This will reduce the tactical considerations and care one must take in disabling a mech - instead, people with money, but that just *want* that mech, will totally overkill it.

[Vincent Hall]

A third option for when a mech is truly destroyed should be if the reactor is destroyed.

[zax]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

Not quite true. Think of each turn as a snapshot taken every 10 seconds.

And during that snapshot, your opponent is standing still. In any turn-based game, it doesn't matter if the turn simulates 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 years, the point is that when it is your turn and you fire at point A-10, your opponent is not going to suddenly move to point C-15.

People who complain about legging are, quite simply, bad players. Assuming that legs are given something besides paper for armor, if one player aims at the legs and the other player aims at the CT, the legging player will lose. The only time the legging player will not lose is if they are the better player.

The one valid complaint about legging is this: Your opponent should not be able to take off your leg and leave you with no way to get back into the battle. If battles allow any respawn at all, giving players the ability to root and abandon their opponents in disadvantageous positions will become the norm.

[Kudzu]

zax, on 15 November 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

And during that snapshot, your opponent is standing still. In any turn-based game, it doesn't matter if the turn simulates 10 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 years, the point is that when it is your turn and you fire at point A-10, your opponent is not going to suddenly move to point C-15.

Yet the modifiers for movement and such remain to represent what your mechs were doing in those 10 seconds. Turns aren't "move for 10 seconds, full stop, volley fire, move again", it's an abstraction.

[TheRulesLawyer]

jezebel, on 15 November 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:

I postulate that this cycle of rounds would go quite a different way.

Round 1: You run out in the open with an infighting 'Mech, and your tactical-minded long-ranged opponent shoots your leg to prevent you from getting close.
Round 2: Same thing happens.
Round 3: You either approach with cover all sneaky-like or you decide to fight fire with fire.

If you disconnect out of frustration, that's your fault, not your opponent's. Adapt.

I'm not comfortable with dumbing the play down to the LCD. I'm seeing more and more games lately where the focus is taken away from hard work and skill. I'm going to ask a hard question here: Why is it so wrong for people to be successful? I'm told the legging/fairness issue isn't "about winning" - but if it's not about winning, what is it about? Fairness - You mean, your ability to win. Honor - You mean, your excuse for not winning.

Everyone is capable of playing the game, leg death or no leg death. Some choose not to, and then complain about those who do. I just don't understand it. Put me on record here: If it's not legs, it'll be something else.

Fairness/balance, no. Everyone can do it. Its balanced I suppose. It just doesn't make for very fun game play, and it not true to cannon. Just like most FPS avoid one shot kills, and everyone is always up in arms about the 1 shot kill weapons. Some things just aren't fun. I can and have played the legging game. I don't enjoy it as a mechanic.

[Neanot]

For legging, I would say a combination of MW2 and MW4. First, the leg is damaged beyond proper use (75% damage), so limping but still some movement. After sustained further damage it is destroyed, so you fall over, and this takes you out of the fight. If you completely lose a leg, it should cost much more to replace than simply to repair, but should be very hard to blow off completely.

To prevent greifing, once a mech is classed as destroyed, for what ever reason, any further damage to that mech should not increase the repair bill, but should be just cosmetic for the remaining players. Otherwise, you could get people going round, legging players, and then trashing the downed mechs that can't fight back, just to make people have bigger repair bills.

[zax]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 12:02 PM, said:

Yet the modifiers for movement and such remain to represent what your mechs were doing in those 10 seconds. Turns aren't "move for 10 seconds, full stop, volley fire, move again", it's an abstraction.

And that abstraction is no longer abstract in the MW games. Players are given the ability to aim and maneuver as they like, meaning tabletop systems like dice rolls are now irrelevant. Penalties are implemented in real time using mechanics that directly effect players in some way, whether that is an unstable reticule while jumping or vision blur when overheating.

A lot of BattleTech tabletop gamers seem to have this obsession with having players unable to accurately target their opponents because, according to lore, targeting computers suck. Lore is irrelevant in the game, because if you release a game where players do NOT hit what they're aiming at, you're only going to **** a lot of players off and they will quit.

And once again, if they implement a damage system where leg armor is not made of paper, legging is a non-issue because people who specifically target legs will lose to players who decide to just kill others by shooting the CT. Most of the damage and armor values used in the TT game can only be used as very rough guidelines for the values in the game.

If you're a player who always finds himself complaining about getting legged, the solution is to get better. There are simple counters to getting legged, the most obvious of which is to just frakking kill him while he messes around trying to leg you.

[Hodo]

I prefer the Multiplayer Battletech version....

1 Leg destroyed you fall over, you can attempt to get up, by pressing G.

Both legs gone, mech is disabled and cant stand.. BUT you can still fire one arm.

Lose your center torso Internal structure. Your mech is trash. Nothing more than salvage. If your engine explodes due to massive amounts of center torso damage, or engine criticals, you mech isnt even salvage its just GONE.

Nothing more fun than legging a opponent who has whined all day in the forums about something and leaving him till last, Then sitting just out of his reach and picking off parts of his mech till he ejects.

[Kudzu]

zax, on 15 November 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

And that abstraction is no longer abstract in the MW games. Players are given the ability to aim and maneuver as they like, meaning tabletop systems like dice rolls are now irrelevant. Penalties are implemented in real time using mechanics that directly effect players in some way, whether that is an unstable reticule while jumping or vision blur when overheating.

Indeed you can, and there are ways to do so while remaining true to the established universe.

Quote

A lot of BattleTech tabletop gamers seem to have this obsession with having players unable to accurately target their opponents because, according to lore, targeting computers suck. Lore is irrelevant in the game, because if you release a game where players do NOT hit what they're aiming at, you're only going to **** a lot of players off and they will quit.

Lore is what separates Battletech from the other mecha titles out there. It's deep, rich, and compelling in it's own way. Lore, in fact, makes Battletech what it is. The further away you move from it the worse the games get-- see MW4 and the MA titles for examples. Those upset players can go back to trading derogatory comments about each others sexual preferences and race on Bnet and Counterstrike servers for all I care. Here's the thing, those of us who have played the sims that stuck closer to the TT rules than the major titles can tell you how much better it is, can you say the same having no basis for comparison?

Quote

And once again, if they implement a damage system where leg armor is not made of paper, legging is a non-issue because people who specifically target legs will lose to players who decide to just kill others by shooting the CT. Most of the damage and armor values used in the TT game can only be used as very rough guidelines for the values in the game.

Or, you know, they could try to make it closer to the TT and amazingly all those values work rather well and it clears up a lot of the usual complaints about the series.

[minobu tetsuharu]

Legging is one of the most important mechanics that needs to be addressed in MW.

Legging in past games was like getting stunned because you usually were rendered helpless.


It is this lack of ability to do anything after losing a leg that has made me dislike MW3 and MW4. Atleast with MW2 you could attempt to continue fighting and I have managed to get a kill after I lost a leg and was desperately managing my jump jets and torso twist on a circle strafing opponent. It was glorious.


As a result mechs better be able to continue fighting after they lost their legs.

But that isn't the only solution that is needed.

Even if mechs could fight back there has to be an incentive to kill off a downed opponent. A rule should be in place that a person that has been legged gets a de-aggression timer. This timer is tied directly to the respawn timer (I'm assuming this exists).
When the timer ends the person can choose to eject and respawn immediately in a new machine. If they eject early they still have to wait for the remaining respawn time (which was the same as the de-aggression timer) to finish.

[CaveMan]

minobu tetsuharu, on 15 November 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Even if mechs could fight back there has to be an incentive to kill off a downed opponent. A rule should be in place that a person that has been legged gets a de-aggression timer. This timer is tied directly to the respawn timer (I'm assuming this exists).
When the timer ends the person can choose to eject and respawn immediately in a new machine. If they eject early they still have to wait for the remaining respawn time (which was the same as the de-aggression timer) to finish.

Personally I don't want respawn at all. Maybe in deathmatch, whatever, that's fine. I'll probably only play Conquest mode though.

[Caballo]

CaveMan, on 15 November 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

Personally I don't want respawn at all. Maybe in deathmatch, whatever, that's fine. I'll probably only play Conquest mode though.

+1

[TheRulesLawyer]

zax, on 15 November 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

A lot of BattleTech tabletop gamers seem to have this obsession with having players unable to accurately target their opponents because, according to lore, targeting computers suck. Lore is irrelevant in the game, because if you release a game where players do NOT hit what they're aiming at, you're only going to **** a lot of players off and they will quit.

If that were true, nobody would be buying call of duty and battlefield 3. But, hey lets not look at far more popular franchises that do extremely well with this "fatal" flaw.

[Angel Mortalitas]

Alexander Grave, on 14 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

^^This. I sincerely agree with it. Although it's nice to think that if my legs break, if a mech falls, you're screwed. Period.

The only way around it would be if the legs just up and died, instead of being sheered off or blown apart. I.E. Actuators die, legs fold.

So, if the mech ends up "squatting", that's different. But if the legs are just plain destroyed, pilot death. Thoughts?

That analogy you are agreeing with was a rather poor one, try this: imagine a person that is very inebriated, now drunk people invariably fall down.....hard! When was the last time you saw a drunkard's head explode performing an involuntary face-plant?

I for one would prefer to have my mech still be functional (albeit limited) should it's legs get shot off from beneath it, fighting to the absolute last breath really appeals to me be it standing or on the ground. My mech's self-destruct system tied into it's legs really destroys the immersion imho.....kinda reminds me of those cheesy movies where a car drives off a small cliff and inexplicably explodes in mid air.

[Vargyr]

Great discussion and some very thought-provoking comments all throughout this thread.

(Big post planned. Thought better of it. I'm not writing a wikipedia article.)

Legging sucks, but legging is realistic. Realisitic and MMO (Mass-Marketed, Online) titles generally don't mix. We Hardcore Lore-ists and Sim-junkies are not the majority.

The recently adopted rule of games-development is: The one with the biggest subscription list wins.

So..

We won't have legging.

Yes. Shooting legs will slow or even cripple mechs. Yes. A slowed mech is an easier target and will likely end up killed.

No. That leg won't come off. No. That pilot won't be forced to eject and will keep shooting you in the face.


Just my thoughts based on the realism setting in the current market. You can add "probably" or "maybe" to anything I've said here if that makes you feel better.

Quote

Q. How loyal will MechWarrior® Online™ be to the tabletop rules (heat management, melee, armor penetration, etc.)?

A. We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

Edited by Vargyr, 16 November 2011 - 02:23 AM.