134 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

(I tried searching for this thread in Suggestions, but didn't find it.)

I honestly believe that a Mech should topple over on its side if a leg is completely destroyed. Back, long ago, when I played the first Mechwarrior game I was extremely puzzled about how a Mech could stand on one leg with its center of gravity so far away from the fulcrum. And Mechwarrior 4's way of addressing leg destruction was to limit leg damage to a "hobble."

This is ridiculous. A wide-stance heavy bipedal Mech with a blown-out leg could never hold up its weight on a broken limb, nor could it balance on one leg unless it has very, very well articulated hips; it should fall over sideways to the ground and continue firing it's weapons until it gets properly destroyed. A quad-leg Mech might be a different story, and a very light Mech with a very narrow stance might be able to stand on one leg, but those should be exceptions to the general rule.

It's just my suggestion, but all reports of canon-related points of interest are encouraged here.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 November 2011 - 09:50 AM.

[JzT Dolomite]

That was seen more for a gamebalance reason than a realistic reason, kinda like the 1 hit protection that promotes more fighting.

There is a point that realism should not override a good game and on this point ((along with the 1 hit protection)) should stay. I did play the other versions of MW that would KD a mech who's leg was taken out and after a while it became a legging fest that, depending on the game mode, would either be an outright death sentence or have a person sit face down the whole match cause the other side did not want them back in.

[feor]

Mechs have very, very articulated hips. There's instances in the background of Dire Wolves (Daishis to the Sphere) losing a leg and managing to not only not fall over, but balance itself well enough to finish off its attacker with a torso mounted RAC/5. Course, that particular one was Victor Steiner-Davion, AKA God's Gift to Battlemechs, but it's still quite possible for mechs to remain balanced on one leg.

The movement we've seen in the past in Mechwarrior games is not at all representative of mech mobility. Mechs have muscles, the myomar on a humanoid mech is almost identical to your own musculature system, and the mech, as a result, moves like a person. Mechs can do Gymnastics if they have to. (examples: Decision at Thunder Rift features both Shadow Hawks and Stingers doing shoulder rolls, and Falcon Guard features and entire mech Trinary, from Fire Moths up to Dire Wolves, doing Jumping Jacks)

Now, all that having been said, the way it's handled in the boardgame IIRC, loss of a leg can happen one of two ways, if it's simply damaged until it stops working you end up like in MW4, you have to make a pilot check to keep from falling over at that point, but if you do you can then stand up and move at significant reduced penalty (1hex/turn, about 10km/h). You can also have the leg completely severed by a critical hit. In that case you fall over automatically. You can then crawl at 1hex/turn. You can also stand up from the loss of a leg, but can't move except via jump jets. Good luck staying on your foot when you land though.

When you've fallen in Battletech you're also not completely hopeless. You can still fire your weapons, though there are limits. (Both arms weapons, or one arm's weapons and torso weapons - using the second arm to prop yourself up) And when being attacked, if your attacker is more than 1 hex away you are actually harder to hit, though your a sitting duck if someone does get 1 hex away from you.

If they could implement some of those things (imagine going prone with a Gauss rifle for a more concealed and stable sniping position? Or a greivously damaged one legged mech doing a suicide DFA on an enemy? ) It would strongly improve the immersion of the game, IMHO.

[Aegis Kleais]

Prosperity Park, on 19 November 2011 - 09:49 AM, said:

(I tried searching for this thread in Suggestions, but didn't find it.)

I honestly believe that a Mech should topple over on its side if a leg is completely destroyed. Back, long ago, when I played the first Mechwarrior game I was extremely puzzled about how a Mech could stand on one leg with its center of gravity so far away from the fulcrum. And Mechwarrior 4's way of addressing leg destruction was to limit leg damage to a "hobble."

This is ridiculous. A wide-stance heavy bipedal Mech with a blown-out leg could never hold up its weight on a broken limb, nor could it balance on one leg unless it has very, very well articulated hips; it should fall over sideways to the ground and continue firing it's weapons until it gets properly destroyed. A quad-leg Mech might be a different story, and a very light Mech with a very narrow stance might be able to stand on one leg, but those should be exceptions to the general rule.

It's just my suggestion, but all reports of canon-related points of interest are encouraged here.

The devs have said that certain things will be left out of the game because they do not transpose well into gameplay mechanics. Though I'm sure some level of physics will be in this game, and though it makes logical sense that a legless Mech would fall over, it too would make sense that the Mech would be rendered combat-ineffective and the player considered "downed" (if not outright "dead by association", though not to say they won't allow the pilot to escape the Mech and continue on, etc.)

If the Mech falls due to a loss of a leg, I say that it should no longer have any ability to continue the fight. Besides, what any average player would do is simply move to the Mechs' back side and then shame the downed pilot by beating a defenseless Mech into scrap metal. Would be a shameful way to go.

[Hodo]

Not going to quote anyone here, because this is a general answer.

If a mech loses a leg, the instant it loses its leg it should fall over. Dont know about you, but if you get your leg shot out from under you while your mid stride, I think you would fall over. (Hell when I blew my ACL, my next step was me on my side on the ground wondering why I am down there.)

As for standing up, yes they should be able to stand up again. But movement will be severely hampered by the fact it only has one leg.

As for anything from the books, you might as well chalk them up to "hero" mode. Anything that a MAIN character does in a book is like watching Delta Force. Sure Chuck Norris is a DELTA operator, but he knows everything about anything and can survive getting shot at by a RPG, and fire a LAW from inside a confined area and the back blast not even affect him. Why because he is the main character. (and he is Chuck Norris)

[UncleKulikov]

Because it isn't fun to get your leg shot off and be worthless for the rest of the match.

[Felicitatem Parco]

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.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 November 2011 - 12:19 PM.

[Fiachdubh]

Mechs fell over when lost a leg in MW2 so it wouldnt exactly be uncharted territory. Lose the leg and give the mech a chance to stay upright based on the player or characters skill level.

Edited by Fiachdubh, 19 November 2011 - 02:17 PM.

[Alistair Steiner]

Poking back to MWLL for a moment. You lose a leg, you go down. But it's possible (albeit hard) to continue to fire on the enemy. You can, however, shut down the 'Mech and hop out, so long as you still have enough armor to survive getting shot at while you're down. Ejecting shoots you into the ground, which is insta-death, I'm fairly certain. I would like the ability to at least sit up (perhaps propping up with one arm, therefore negating the weapons on that arm) and continuing firing in a limited arc, somewhat like a fixed turret or tank with destroyed treads or damaged drive. Of course, that would be easier for humanoid 'Mechs, though the "birdie walkers" may be able to sit up easier, depending on their design. Basically, legging should not be a kill (MW3, I'm looking at you), but it should drastically reduce the danger of the 'Mech. Still, if you leg an Atlas which still carries fully functional weapons, it's going to be deadly as long as it's sitting there. Sort of a "Last Stand" kind of deal. Heroic sacrifice if you want to go the way of Aidan Pryde and cover your allies' retreat.

Edited by Alistair Steiner, 19 November 2011 - 03:41 PM.

[feor]

J Echo, on 19 November 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

Mechwarrior isn't supposed to be based on the novels (which are little more than published fan fiction) nor a direct representation of the tabletop (which is hopelessly outdated). Get over it.

What's the point of even calling it mechwarrior if you ignore everything from the battletech universe? The universe is an established setting with an established set of rules for how the things in that work. If you don't follow at least some of those rules, it's not Mechwarrior.

it'd be like making a Star Trek movie and going "it's Star Trek, but there's not Federation, or Aliens, and they use Turbolasers, not phasers, and they travel through Hyperspace, not with Warp Drives."

We (or at least I) am not saying that everything from the tabletop should be directly translated into MWO, however, when it presents a way in which mechs behave in a certain situation, that should be used as a starting point to develop how the mech will behave in the same situation in the game. Mechs in the board game are not immediately out of action if they lose a leg (or even both legs) however their abilities are strongly curtailed. I think they should take that as what they're working towards representing in MWO.

[That Guy]

mechs should fall down if they have their legs removed with the ability to get up (if they still have functioning arms). it should not be an automatic kill/distruction, it should be up to the pilot if he wants to stick around and fight, or ditch his mech for safety

also, mechs should only limp if they have leg actuators damaged

[Xenois Shalashaska]

Im agreeing with "that guy". Mechs should fall down when a leg is removed & have the ability to get up. I have always been a fan of the video game mechwarrior series & this game needs to evolve from the table top or novel based stories. The mechwarrior 4 game had a good idea of the leg being crippled & still able to move, but if we incorporate legs blow off, then yeah the bi pedal mechs should fall down, but the reverse jointed mechs like Timberwolf should be able to stand with one leg. If an atlas loses a leg & falls down it should be able to arch half it body up to fire just like if you were to sit on the ground with your legs out. Reverse jointed mechs wouldn't be able to in that case, simpley laydown & torso around in the dirt. Crippled legs & ballancing acts !!

[Hodo]

feor, on 19 November 2011 - 03:41 PM, said:

What's the point of even calling it mechwarrior if you ignore everything from the battletech universe? The universe is an established setting with an established set of rules for how the things in that work. If you don't follow at least some of those rules, it's not Mechwarrior.

it'd be like making a Star Trek movie and going "it's Star Trek, but there's not Federation, or Aliens, and they use Turbolasers, not phasers, and they travel through Hyperspace, not with Warp Drives."

We (or at least I) am not saying that everything from the tabletop should be directly translated into MWO, however, when it presents a way in which mechs behave in a certain situation, that should be used as a starting point to develop how the mech will behave in the same situation in the game. Mechs in the board game are not immediately out of action if they lose a leg (or even both legs) however their abilities are strongly curtailed. I think they should take that as what they're working towards representing in MWO.

Why not, Activision/Microprose/Microsoft did with Mechwarrior 2, 3, and 4?

And JJ Abrams might as well done the same thing with that movie that he called "Star Trek".

[Kudzu]

Hodo, on 19 November 2011 - 11:38 PM, said:

Why not, Activision/Microprose/Microsoft did with Mechwarrior 2, 3, and 4?

Which were fun single player games but had a ton of issues with multi-player. Seeing as this is a multi-player game first with a possible single player game later, might want to scoot away from MW2-4 and back towards CBT which is well made for PvP.

[Melissia]

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?"

Sci-fi is fiction, not reality. Choosing to go with only what you perceive to be real is keeping the sci-fi out of sci-fi.

In the lore, a skilled pilot can possibly keep their 'mech upright for a short amount of time after having their leg shot off. Enough to launch one last volley at least. It depends on any number of variables, but the 'mechwarrior's own sense of balance and skill in fighting the controls matters quite a lot.

The obnoxious hyperbole ("*** ur ignoring everything from battletech because you want to make a game taht doesn't suck instead of a straight up port from tabletop!") remains obnoxious, and therefor worthy of nothing but scorn and ignoring.

Edited by Melissia, 20 November 2011 - 04:11 AM.

[Melissia]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

Good science fiction never has bad science.

Then battletech is bad science fiction anyway.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

True - but it shouldn't stop it being fun

[Stahlseele]

IF a Mech Topples, it should still be able to flop around to turn around and keep firing one Arm and Torso Weapons at Targets . .

[EvilTCell]

What if the mech topples , but a system such as jump-jets kicked in to compensate for the missing limb, if only to get the mech upright and moving slowly. Once the jump-jets are exhausted, then the mech falters again until the jets can recharge. I was thinking of the movie Robot Jocks and how the one mech was able to convert into a tracked vehicle when his leg got damaged, but that should be an option for just a few mechs. Obviously, the game mechanics is the biggest limiting factor and personally if the mechs were programmed to fall down, then the game would be more realistic, but I think would greatly increase the learning curve for newer players. In the past my friends would always gang up on another players legs to get a quick kill. Then again, who's to say that the lose of both legs constitutes a kill anyways?

[feor]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

BT tabletop was made for adversarial, yes, but it was not made for the computer. It was made for an antiquated system which has no relevance to a computer game. Quit being so retrogressive. It's time to move forward and ditch the bad old system in favor of the massively better ones possible.

So why should we cling to the various bad systems from MW2-4 when we can move beyond them into a realm of greater realism where a missing leg doesn't immediately spell doom for your mech. You can choose to punch out if you want to, or you can choose to hobble or crawl along (or sit yourself up against a building) and continue to participate in the battle, admitedly at a reduced capacity.

Stop being so retrogressive and refusing to let go of the past.