134 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Red Beard, on 20 November 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Those are TT rules and they have no bearing here at all.

Why?

[Xhaleon]

If you really want to be anally-retentive about keeping legs when they're "destroyed", just think of them being too toughly made to actually dissect, but may be damaged to the point of limping. If I remember correctly, you can kill a mech in MW4 by continuing to attack the damaged leg, which would lead to a true amputation.

I'm not for that, anyway. Just kill them properly or they shoot you in the back. Understanding mechs is too hard for you treadheads, eh?

[ManDaisy]

anyone remember that battle tech game that used to be on AOL... wayyyyy back in the day. Being legged was never a problem. You just hoped someone was dumb enough to walk into your cross hairs when you were down.

[Xhaleon]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Because this isn't a tabletop game.

And that is not a license to take it in a completely different direction as per your whims.

[Pht]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Because this isn't a tabletop game.

Well, if we use your standard, than *nothing* from the TT game is valid to use - not the 'mech weights, not their names, not how weapons behave, not how fast 'Mechs can move, not what they look like.

Do you really want to go by this blanket standard?

[Pht]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Not following you at all. That statement by no means logically progresses from mine. "We don't need to adhere to everything from it" /= "we must never adhere to anything from it." That's a logical fallacy you've concocted.

No, it's not... you made a blanket statement that can be equally validly applied to all of those things I mentioned. You qualified out nothing else other than "this is not the board game" as a standard for deciding what should and should not be allowed into a mechwarrior game.

[Pht]

J Echo; what's your standard for choosing when and when not to follow the lore?

[Red Beard]

Echo, I fear that should you continue to feed into Pht's delirium, this halfway decent thread will suffer a very ugly fate.

Garth is ever present....

And Pht enjoys his own posts far more than one should...

[Pht]

Red Beard, on 20 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Echo, I fear that should you continue to feed into Pht's delirium, this halfway decent thread will suffer a very ugly fate.

How dare anyone ask questions of someone's basic ideas... yessir, that's delirious!

Quote

And Pht enjoys his own posts far more than one should...

No, not really.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Red Beard, on 20 November 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

The TT rules do not, at all, define this game, nor the MW franchise.

You have to be kidding. The TT rules are the single most defining thing about the battletech universe. They are where everything battletech related was born. Its like someone saying after playing star wars:knights of the old republic that the original movies do not define the that game or the any future games set in the star wars universe.

[Corsair114]

Now, there's this funny bit in the Q&A where they said one of the things they want to address is the, paraphrased, "viability" of legging a 'mech. Dunno what that means exactly, but probably being flopped over on your face the moment you lose a leg is likely not how it'll be addressed.

[feor]

Corsair114, on 21 November 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Now, there's this funny bit in the Q&A where they said one of the things they want to address is the, paraphrased, "viability" of legging a 'mech. Dunno what that means exactly, but probably being flopped over on your face the moment you lose a leg is likely not how it'll be addressed.

I've got no problem being flopped onto my face the moment I lose a leg, provided that I can prop myself up on a building, or crawl across the battlefield, and still participate in the match if I so choose.

[Eegxeta]

Prosperity Park, on 19 November 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:

So, gameplay-wise, should Mechs topple over if they receive excessive leg damage [to the point of total limb destruction], or should we just chalk this one up to "Keep the Sci out of SciFi?"

I know it's a game, and you have to keep the game playable... but to be perfectly frank, if you ever find yourself fighting a hoard of giant bipedal Mechs, you *should* very well target the legs. I mean we try to make our tanks with a small frontal surface area, armor plate covering the treads, and a low center of gravity for a reason - it keeps them mobile under fire. The legs of a tall Mech would be targeted ASAP under conditions of war.

Especially if the conditions of war revolve around preserving infrastructure and mechanical devices. Shooting a Mech's leg out from under it will severly reduce its combat-effectiveness and also preserve the chassis for salvage or repair. A Mech pilot should be encouraged to abandon a toppled Mech unless they have the ability to return fire from ground, rather than play Hero and refuse to surrender. As said before, that would just result in someone circling around behind and blasting away.

Well as a player of MW I have never seen a leg blasted off the mech. What I have seen is the mech's leg becomes unless how they stand is quite simple they use one leg to move forward and with each step they drag the other leg forward to prop the mech so it can take another step. It is a bit more clear on how it works in mech commander because in that game you pay a little more attention to those details. Especially when you have a mech that has a damaged leg and you need to send it to the other side of the map.

Now if I were to change this in anyway I would make getting up optional and a mech can play dead and shut down or roll around on the ground and shoot.

Edited by Eegxeta, 21 November 2011 - 05:10 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Red Beard, on 20 November 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:

Those are TT rules and they have no bearing here at all.

Devs said that they'd try to stick to TT if practicable.
So yes, it does have some bearing.

[SMDMadCow]

Ever play Mech Commander / 2? How they did the legs in those games, would work fine here I think. You lose the ability to move the leg but you can still limp along. Better than in MW2 where your mech just stood on one leg, lol.

[Red Beard]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 21 November 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

Devs said that they'd try to stick to TT if practicable.

The last post I read from one of the devs was a fairly black and white ordeal. They are using the tabletop GAMES as a reference point, but not really utilizing the rules much. As Paul pointed out, there are so many things about the TT rules that simply do not belong in a video game like this.

Quote

So yes, it does have some bearing.

Indeed, SOME, but not much. But...you are right, some.

I can dig how a lot of the old TT folks get bent that their game is not on center stage here, but it really cannot translate too well. Not only that, but can you really expect the devs to try and sell a game that is based on a board game that only a few thousand people even know about.

Imagine:

"Hey bro, have you heard about the new F2P MW game?"

"Yeah, what's it all about?"

"It's gonna be cool, it's based on the old 1980's board game"

"Oh...what, like monopoly?"

"Nevermind"

BTW, thin ice here, so I am gonna leave you with this. It is the IDEAS within the TT game that translate well. The technicalities are far too limiting and are meant for a TT game, not for video games. If you want to discuss the TT game, go to MekTek and find a thread there. By March of 2012, this site will have so many VIDEO GAMERS here, bringing the TT games up in a discussion may well get you laughed out of the room.

[Red Beard]

TheRulesLawyer, on 21 November 2011 - 02:27 PM, said:

You have to be kidding. The TT rules are the single most defining thing about the battletech universe.

Not the RULES, the IDEAS. BIG difference.


Super thin ice here....


I am out.

Edited by Red Beard, 21 November 2011 - 10:19 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

Red Beard, on 20 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

I think I need some kind of medication. I am going to see what the wife has in the medicine cabinet. This just too much. I still think this must be a cruel joke.

Why would it be a joke. My suggestion gives advantages for targeting the legs and damaging them, while not counting out the player who has had a single leg shot off until both are "destroyed".

[Raeven]

Red Beard, on 21 November 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

BTW, thin ice here, so I am gonna leave you with this. It is the IDEAS within the TT game that translate well. The technicalities are far too limiting and are meant for a TT game, not for video games. If you want to discuss the TT game, go to MekTek and find a thread there. By March of 2012, this site will have so many VIDEO GAMERS here, bringing the TT games up in a discussion may well get you laughed out of the room.

You apparently never played MW1, MW2, MW3, MW4, MPBT: EGA, MPBT:Solaris, or MPBT:3025 or didn't understand the significance of the structure that supported all of those games. All of those games were based directly on the Solaris VII ruleset for Battletech. They all implemented some things a bit differently, but a few things stayed identical across each platform. At the core of the Solaris VII ruleset was the 10 second turn, split into four 2.5 second mini turns. The thing that SVII added to the game that made it ideal for translation to a video game was the recycle times for individual weapons.

If you go back to every game, the recycle times for weapons will be identical. Heat reduction will be identical. Ground movement will be identical. Weapon damage will be nearly identical. Battletech is similar to most video games in that the core rules have remained unchanged and are what made the game different from the rest. It is unique from other FPS video games because it has a set of core rules that have a direct connection to the tabletop rules that came before it. So, to disregard the tabletop rules when discussing the mechanics of this video game ignores the history of this game and its many versions before it. To disregard those rules, you shouldn't even call it Battletech.

As for a 'Mech keeping its ability to fight after the loss of a leg. Hell yes! The only thing lost is manueverability (and whatever else might have been mounted in that leg). That's one of the things about Battletech that should never change. You can have a 'Mech with 100% armor loss, missing arms, torsoes, a leg or two, but as long as it's got a functioning engine, gyros, sensors, pilot, and at least one weapon, it's still a part of the fight. To keep things fun, I would suggest a legged 'Mech should be able to sit up and slowly turn 360 degrees. Say, 10 seconds per 60 degrees. A double legged 'Mech should be able to prop itself up on one arm and use whatever weapons are left in the other arm and torsoes. Don't know how I would handle turning with a double legged 'Mech. Any 'Mech should be able to lie on it's back and fire arm mounted weapons in just about any direction around it.

[Raeven]

I should have also mentioned, if you haven't played the TT game, you can't possibly understand how the TT game made the video game into what it is.