17 replies to this topic

[KamikazeRat]

Simple thought....if you blow out both legs, why does the mech quit working. Stop moving, i get, thus, turret. if you lose 1 leg, you can still hobble, so 2 legs missing shouldn't magically power down the mech.

So simple suggestion, if you lose both legs, you can't turn or move, just your torso twist and arm movement, so if you get stuck somewhere inconvenient, oh well.

The only thought im not sure about is Torso mounted JJ and how that would work.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Maybe, if the mech still has both arms, to be able to prop itself up after falling from losing both legs.

We'd just need to be able do actions like go prone, and have more dynamic animations and so on, though!



From some Errata pg 28, I had to google.

Quote

“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. The ’Mech cannot change hexsides or attempt to stand, though it can still attempt to prop itself up to fire if it has both arms.”

[KamikazeRat]

Yes, that's pretty much what I was referring to.
Hmm... Forgot about the arms thing though...Haven't played TT in a long time. I'd be good with that. Even minus arms. As long as you don't land face down, you could still fire, just not much aim to it. Lol.

Idk. I'm up in the air about implementation. Just doesn't make sense that a mech goes pop because it can't stand, when the dang things are still walking with 1 leg blown to bits. I know legging has always been a MW thing. But it's never made sense to me.

[Reno Blade]

Did you play MW2 Mercenaries? If you lost one leg there, your mech would fall over and the only way to stand up again was to use JJets. Then you would stand on one leg and could hop forward a bit.

I like the one-legged movement in MWO, but if you had two legs crippled, you could have something like in MW2mercs.
Falling over and beeing prone on the ground.

It would make legged mechs still a thread, but could lead to griefing (spelling?).

As this would increase time to kill (by legging) this could increase the overall battle time a bit.
But this would make it possible to remove leg armor.

[WintermuteOmega]

I am against that idea. Many small Mechs depend on taking out legs of bigger guys. If you take away that Option (and the enemy mech is with his back to the wall), that would make SMall mechs even less viable.
And secondly, when you can't move you are ead witin seconds anyway, since your back would be wide open for attacks.It would just popone death for some seconds if any.

[KamikazeRat]

WintermuteOmega, on 25 July 2014 - 02:40 AM, said:

I am against that idea. Many small Mechs depend on taking out legs of bigger guys. If you take away that Option (and the enemy mech is with his back to the wall), that would make SMall mechs even less viable.
And secondly, when you can't move you are ead witin seconds anyway, since your back would be wide open for attacks.It would just popone death for some seconds if any.

I'm surprised at the opposition to this. Yes a legged mech is essentially dead anyway. But legs don't hold any vital systems. No engine. No gyro. No cockpit. They aren't what you should be aiming at in the first place. It's only a system built into the game that people exploit. Not actually something that has any rhyme or reason to it. How is it any different than a mech out of ammo. Why not have them explode then. Or a mech that had only arm weapons losing both arms, they're no good, just count that as a kill. See my point?

[MechB Kotare]

Aha.

So You tell me that when both of your leg bones gets broken, you can't move, but you are still able to stand?

Logic? Nothing really? Destroyed = Doesnt fuction anymore = Looses capability to maintain the torso tons weight on them.

Legged mech shouldnt be counted as destroyed, rather "incapacitated", just as headshot mech, but thats pretty much the same thing, because destroyed legs wont allow the battlemech to stand.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 25 July 2014 - 11:37 AM.

[KamikazeRat]

MechB Kotare, on 25 July 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

Aha.

So You tell me that when both of your leg bones gets broken, you can't move, but you are still able to stand?

Logic? Nothing really? Destroyed = Doesnt fuction anymore = Looses capability to maintain the torso tons weight on them.

Legged mech shouldnt be counted as destroyed, rather "incapacitated", just as headshot mech, but thats pretty much the same thing, because destroyed legs wont allow the battlemech to stand.

So. One legged mechs can walk at 40kph? But take out the other leg and it shuts down? Makes no sense. I think that a destroyed leg is either broken or missing. Pick one. Does it blow it off? Then missing 1 leg is a stationary mech. Don't even try to sell me on 20-100 tons trying to hop without jj. Just not going to work. If it's just damaged (broken myomers and actuators) then why couldn't it somewhat support weight as it is obviously doing if you're moving at 40kph.

And a headshot takes out the pilot, i.e. The person controlling it, thus inactive. Center torso (and ST w/ XL) takes out the engine, thus inactive. Legs take out nothing, sure, you may be staring at the floor, but the mech is still active. Give people an option to punch-out and spectate or hope someone comes through the crosshairs if they are lucky enough to land on the side. Or let them prop themselves up and be a stationary torso-turret. I don't really care on that matter, but legs missing shouldn't incapacitate a mech to the point of "game over"

Are we playing a simulator or an arcade game. That is what this really boils down to. My vote is for a simulator.

[MechB Kotare]

KamikazeRat, on 25 July 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

So. One legged mechs can walk at 40kph? But take out the other leg and it shuts down? Makes no sense. I think that a destroyed leg is either broken or missing. Pick one. Does it blow it off? Then missing 1 leg is a stationary mech. Don't even try to sell me on 20-100 tons trying to hop without jj. Just not going to work. If it's just damaged (broken myomers and actuators) then why couldn't it somewhat support weight as it is obviously doing if you're moving at 40kph.

And a headshot takes out the pilot, i.e. The person controlling it, thus inactive. Center torso (and ST w/ XL) takes out the engine, thus inactive. Legs take out nothing, sure, you may be staring at the floor, but the mech is still active. Give people an option to punch-out and spectate or hope someone comes through the crosshairs if they are lucky enough to land on the side. Or let them prop themselves up and be a stationary torso-turret. I don't really care on that matter, but legs missing shouldn't incapacitate a mech to the point of "game over"

Are we playing a simulator or an arcade game. That is what this really boils down to. My vote is for a simulator.

I totally agree that mech running 40 Km/Ph with one leg destroyed is bullcrap. But if you noticed, once you get shot at while legged, the mech slows down, gets actual legged animation which shows that the destroyed leg acts only as a backup to help the other functional leg stand the mech still, while running only at 5% of speed.

In this matter, 40 kmph per leg is bullcrap.

Edt:

No matter though, i still think its illogcal for both destroyed legs to maintain ability of carrying ehavy tonnage on them.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 25 July 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[KamikazeRat]

MechB Kotare, on 25 July 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

No matter though, i still think its illogcal for both destroyed legs to maintain ability of carrying ehavy tonnage on them.

fair enough, im good with being a stationary floor-turret or even as mentioned, a random landing determines your torso aimpoint. (as craptastic as that would be), but it still shouldn't shut down the mech. optional eject and spectate button, maybe.

from a gameplay aspect: it would hamper legging as a tactic, although i still think legging is faster, then you are left with a less mobile/immobile target to pick off, or forget about and move on, same thought as shooting at arms, or ST intentionally, disable/disarm and move to the next threat, then come back and mop up.

as the target it still gives you playtime after you've been legged, even if it does go to the complete non-fun side of this suggestion, and you may randomly be looking at the floor. on the more fun side, you become a stationary bullseye with guns. im good either way.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 25 July 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[The Massive]

This would need some serious reworking of mechanics. Firing from a mech on the ground for example. Far to complex for a yes or no answer I think. I'd prefer the time spent on introducing melee combat first.

[Impyrium]

The logic side of this makes me want to say no. You loose a leg, it the 'Mech's balance and remaining leg can keep it going. If you brake both, then there's no power in the legs to keep it standing. Frankly this just makes no sense to me.

[KamikazeRat]

well, it would actually be pretty easy to implement the original thought of no leg movement. which is why i made the simple version to start with, it would probably only require a few quick coding changes, change death condition, add in script so when both legs are disabled movement is zero, they could probably modify the current 1 leg script to fit the no leg script, and done. It only started to get complicated after people didnt like the original concept. im still surprised by the oppostion to this, maybe its the fact that legging has always been a thing in MW titles, TT however, as Praetor Knight cited, legging still didnt take a mech completely out of combat and thats what i was going for.

[Tesunie]

No offense meant, but I think this would be bad for the game in general.

I understand what you say, and there were times in lore that people, instead of bailing or surrendering, would prop their mech up on an arm and continue to try and shoot and fight. However, in lore, most people surrendered and gave up once they had lost a leg, certainly if they lost two legs. (Also, your arm would need actuators to life your mech up with them. Mechs like the Cicada wouldn't be able to, or the Jenner... as examples.)

As far as game mechanics go, I can see this being abused more than helpful. I can see someone being legged, and instead of trying to continue the fight, they will shut down and hope no one sees them. This would create the "hunt down the last mech so we can kill it and win" issue. As all mechs would appear to be destroyed, no one would really have an easy time finding any persons shut down and legged, unless they have BAP and walk right next to them.

I just don't see the mechanic working in a game sense. I think it would cause more grief than it would fun, and that it is currently better to just have them counted as dead. It's not like running out of ammo or losing all weapons, as in many game modes, just being able to move can still let you distract or even win the match for your team. Also, mechs that have no weapons left (by ammo or weapon destruction) are still standing and appearing as active, making even a shut down weaponless mech easier to find than any "active" legged mech ever would be.

(Another issue I can see is a legged mech dropping, then possibly killing their target after being legged, and then being so far out of the rest of the fight, that they might as well be shut down and dead as no one else can walk near them. This leads to boredom for the individual "crippled" player, even if it doesn't create a problem later on trying to hunt them down. I'd rather watch other people play at least, than a blank screen with no targets...)

[LiGhtningFF13]

No wouldn't be possible, too hard to program!

[Moses Lanknau]

i remeber mbt3025 had it just right:

u could still fight while laying on the back or side, in case of rear weapons even if the front was digged into the dirt.

i once made a kill there, in a commando while laying with no legs and only the arm mounted laser left on its back, a spider pilot juped over me right into my crosshairs ... i couldnd resist to fire ... hit ... boom ... its wreckage crashed almost on me ... was a real epic one, i think ...

[KamikazeRat]

Tesunie, on 26 July 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

(Another issue I can see is a legged mech dropping, then possibly killing their target after being legged, and then being so far out of the rest of the fight, that they might as well be shut down and dead as no one else can walk near them. This leads to boredom for the individual "crippled" player, even if it doesn't create a problem later on trying to hunt them down. I'd rather watch other people play at least, than a blank screen with no targets...)

i did offer a punch-out solution for that "you have been legged, press (bound key) to punch out and spectate" pops up in the corner. (also would offer this as a possible option in general for people who want to leave a match, beats them disconnecting and holding up the end-game)

but your other points, about people using it to hide, its not that much different than a ECM mech Disco'd on a large map, i have seen several fast-paced battles that end up in a 13 minute hunt for the ECM mech. if thats the case, generally the other team will press F9 and give up their location, they want to move on to the next game too, unless its a capture situation and that team is winning, then, well, its not going to last long anyway if its that close. I do see the abuse factor, but at the same time, i've seen some people hide in pretty obscure spots and disco after they knew their game was over, with fully functional mechs, so the only point is about them being face-down, which...i do actually agree, kinda sucks. My original though was a standing mech. but...yeah. I still like my idea, but i think i've about given up on it, seems to be unpopular.

[Tesunie]

KamikazeRat, on 26 July 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

i did offer a punch-out solution for that "you have been legged, press (bound key) to punch out and spectate" pops up in the corner. (also would offer this as a possible option in general for people who want to leave a match, beats them disconnecting and holding up the end-game)

but your other points, about people using it to hide, its not that much different than a ECM mech Disco'd on a large map, i have seen several fast-paced battles that end up in a 13 minute hunt for the ECM mech. if thats the case, generally the other team will press F9 and give up their location, they want to move on to the next game too, unless its a capture situation and that team is winning, then, well, its not going to last long anyway if its that close. I do see the abuse factor, but at the same time, i've seen some people hide in pretty obscure spots and disco after they knew their game was over, with fully functional mechs, so the only point is about them being face-down, which...i do actually agree, kinda sucks. My original though was a standing mech. but...yeah. I still like my idea, but i think i've about given up on it, seems to be unpopular.

I just see too many ways to abuse the mechanic, just about no mater how it is implemented.
I say no only because I don't think it can be balanced well and have a way to reduce griefing, not because it's a bad idea (or against lore).
Concept is fine. As a game mechanic... I don't see it working well.