43 replies to this topic

[Ratfriend]

i like the old way and legs where hard anough to hit if the pilot aint a total moron and only run towards people or back away from them that the legs where easy to hit as for arms yes i admit they where often to weak, anyway if we should split up arms legs then its should only be 2 parts for the leg too as giving the foot full armor/int is to much for such a small target and give it less is a huge risk also so lower leg should also be foot part

[Agent CraZy DiP]

I'm talking about the armor of the leg and how to fairly "distribute" the damage.

[CCC Dober]

Sancho pretty much nailed it with his real world example. Chewing through a leg should definitely reward those who can focus on a critical area instead of those who just spray and pray. The same holds true for an arm.

Another thought occured to me that could do away with some of the more ridiculous mechanics. What if relatively useless things like hand actuators and shoulder guards simply act as additional layers of armor? All of a sudden you could turn a weakness into a strength. Imagine those huge shoulders on the Templar or Zeus being nothing else than bullet sponges. Or the Atlas fists, which are currently useless because we lack melee combat. Or armored kneepads on Mechs that actually do what they are supposed to do.

There are plenty more examples where form didn't follow function in past games. Useful design considerations have been rendered useless and even turned into a liability because of engine limitations. Well, why not make them do what they are supposed to do with the awesome engine that allows much more freedom? Make all these past 'liabilities' eat and mitigate damage like they are supposed to do and not penalize the Mechs for it. What do you think?

[Ratfriend]

so now 2 hit locations in arms and legs aint anough? you want to add armor for hands and shoulder joins too? i hope your not serious that would make even medium mechs high armored so light mechs wont be able to scratch them unless they shoot them in backside unless you think mechs are to weak there too? no i cannot accept this if this come to a poll the developers make i would definetly vote against it no they should keep mechs as they are and always have been in these kind of games IT WORKS! why break something that works

[SargeOsis]

While I understand where the OP is coming from, I'd like to keep the system as is. As Ratfriend stated when you start essentially up armoring vulnerable areas such as legs and arms your reducing the ability of 'mechs to fight out of their weight class. Back when I played MW3/4 in multi I was doing my legging/dearming from light and medium 'mechs. The heavier chassis had the weight of fire to chew through torso armor reasonably well. I'd also assume that you won't just fall over and wait for the match to finish once you've lost a leg as seems to happen to 'mechs in the TT game.

[CCC Dober]

@Sarge
Crippling arms and legs like it happened in the past is an exploit based on the implementation of a ruleset used for randomly distributed damage. When skill enters the equation and the size of hitboxes becomes important, that's where the ruleset has to be adapted. In this case it's a more refined hitbox model. This is one of many ways to achieve parity with the TT experience. If you have a better idea, go on and start your own thread. I've taken some time to think about it, check and double check the implications. It's all covered and I'm confident that it's a worthy solution. What I'm not comfortable with is the fact that you appear to be overly protective of exploits that have plagued the franchise since forever. This is not the way to move this game forwards, rather the exact opposite.

[Fire and Salt]

I don't understand why people are so opposed to legging... if you have full leg armor then its as durable as the ct. So when you are complaining about being legged, you should really be grateful that they didn't hit your ct instead.




Same goes for weapon stripping... if I want to blow off both of your arms, that's probably more armor than your ct... so its going to take more total damage to incapacitate you that way. Sure, during the 2nd half if the battle you will be doing less damage, but it will take more total hits to strip and kill rather than just core someone.



Also, say that I am in a light fighting a catapult... one if his arms is damaged.... I may not be able to kill him, but u can probably take his arm.
If I was in an assault with some real power, I would probably just ignore the arm and go for the ct.

Being able to target specific areas gives the skilled pilots a way to take the stray shots if their noob teammates and turn them into an advantage. Many of the most viable stripping/legging opportunities start with an accidental leg/arm alpha strike.


I hope legging is as viable as mw4, although I hope the damage model is less goofy... leg to leg transfer makes more sense than leg to torso IMO

Just can't have the dead leg acting as a magic shield.

[CCC Dober]

@Salt
It's an exploit if you break it down to the bare minimum. TT games required you to make a called shot and depending on circumstances you had a very good chance to miss. The same can not be said for skill based games. Normally you do hit what you aim for. A bit of leading the target can make it tricky, but that is what skill is all about. TT slaved your skill to the outcome of a roll of dice. That is very different because you had no control where your shots went, no matter your skill. See the difference?

Still think it's legit to continue exploiting the weakness of TT rules?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Devs seem to have decided to go the way of doubling armour instead. There was extensive discussion in the early days of having multiple hitboxes etc. Even making it so that the exact placement, not only of a shot, but where components were etc was modelled etc were considered as the game engine is capable of doing this. It was pointed out that this would place an unaceptable load on the game, on many PCs, and on bandwidth, when multiple weapons and mechs are involved. It also considerably complicates use of armour in the MechLab.
In the same way they have gone for reduced mobility with damaged/destroyed legs rather than a kill.
If people are worried about being legged then they can always drop something for more armour as many stock mechs, especially in the lighter classes, don't have full armour.
It's better to use manouver and terrain to avoid being hit if possible rather than trying to make mechs more survivable by changing hitboxes etc.
I'd be more worried about torso hitboxes which makes some mechs, due to their design/appearance make them more "squishy" than others - they're bigger targets and more likely to be hit if you're aiming centre mass to maximise your chances to hit at range/speed.

[CCC Dober]

Well I can understand that components would add considerable load because they are complex and require additional hitboxes and calculation, but not subdivided existing hitboxes (arms and legs). There is a difference between both and a big one at that. It's different from what I'm suggesting. In essence I'm asking for added checks on an existing hitbox (leg or arm), whether the upper, middle or lower part has been hit. Visually everything stays the same, just the consequences are slightly more detailed; i.e. pronounciation/speed of limping with a partially damaged/destroyed leg or whether the integrated weapons still work or not. It'll help to consolidate both TT and novels without artificially imposed limits of the former, which will make the whole experience more realistic. Nothing more nothing less. An added benefit is the permanent removal of related exploits.

Edited by CCC Dober, 03 July 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Remorse]

Since arms have the advantage of faster tracking, making them more durable will affect the balance between arm- and torsomounted weapons. Having them both at same durability would place the mechs with only torsomounted weapons at a disadvantage. Risk vs reward needs to be in good balance.

As for the size of targets. Since mechs are shells one puts armor into( they dont get bulkier as you add more armor or vise versa), everyone chooses the size of the bullseye they paint on their forehead when they purchase their mechs. Be it on looks, slotplacement or whatever every mech comes with pros and cons(or at least should come). So if you wanted a mech with multiple beam hardpoints on arms but the mech in question happens to have large shoulders and is easily dearmed, then bohoo.

Having the armor match the size of the mech in every location leaves no room for adjustments awailable in current mechlab system. Wouldnt it be fun to build our mechs from scratch with every decision we make affect the looks on the mech? Maybe one day in another game.

[CCC Dober]

The point is not to make arms and legs more durable than originally intended, but to make them AS durable as originally intended. All incarnations of MW made them weaker than necessary due to seemingly mindless copy and paste jobs of the TT system. Even though it's perfect within the TT environment, it simply doesn't work as intended in realtime with skilled players. This leads to cheap exploits and ultimately a worse gaming experience, which is tantamount to failure, given all the technological advantages of our modern hardware. Please understand that and do not condone past mistakes or even worse, endorse trolling/griefing. Either this is understood or we are doomed to run in circles forever. I rest my case.

[Reoh]

CCC Dober, on 23 June 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I would like to suggest the following to tackle two known problems/exploits: legging and weapon stripping

1. The reason why legs have been tempting targets in the past was that they had only a fraction of armor
compared to a fully armored torso PLUS they could be hit from all sides PLUS damage heavily affected
mobility and general survivability.

Solution:
Split up each leg into 3 different parts (foot, lower, upper) and give each of them the full armor and internals
according to standing specifications. This will make them about as hard to kill as the torso above.

2. It was equally not unheard of to see people deliberately strip enemy Mechs of their means to fight back to
grief or ridicule them. Arm-heavy Mechs suffered the most on average. Arms shared roughly the same
problems as legs but were a bit harder to hit from all angles. Although it was much easier to rip them off.

Solution:
Split up each arm into 2 different parts (lower, upper) and give each of them full armor and internals
according to standing specifications.


If such a system is already in place, please consider this thread superfluous and void.
Otherwise I hope this will turn MW:O into a more pleasant experience. Thank you for your attention.

Cheers

Here's where you're wrong...

at 100t there is a difference of 2 armor points between the center torso and each leg armor (at maximum assiged). The side torso actually have 25% less armor, and that's not even counting shooting 'Mechs from behind which is significantly less. People legged enemy mechs because it was a reliable way of hitting a big target that effectively took a mech out of combat while doing minimal damage to its most expensive components and thus raising the amount of salvage gained.

In MWO killing a leg only slows a mech down, and there is no salvage. Thus taking out the main reasons for the practice.

[Dimestore]

Reoh, on 04 July 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Here's where you're wrong...

at 100t there is a difference of 2 armor points between the center torso and each leg armor (at maximum assiged). The side torso actually have 25% less armor, and that's not even counting shooting 'Mechs from behind which is significantly less. People legged enemy mechs because it was a reliable way of hitting a big target that effectively took a mech out of combat while doing minimal damage to its most expensive components and thus raising the amount of salvage gained.

In MWO killing a leg only slows a mech down, and there is no salvage. Thus taking out the main reasons for the practice.

This seems like a pretty solid reasoning. I know when I shot for leg it was for salvage not for quick kill: it could take similar damage as the torso and didn't have any chance of engine/ammo hits for insta-kill.

In MWO, leg hits leading to limping not limb loss removes any balance issue there; your mech is still viable, it's just less mobile.

As for arm hits, given the many bonuses to mounting weapons in arms (much better firing arcs, faster & more precise aiming, etc) it is both logically consistent and helps balance the game to have there be a risk of losing these nimble dangling weapons vs the lumbering ones safely buried in the mound of armour called a torso.

CCC Dober: I understand the point you're trying to make but I don't think it's as strong as you seem to believe: I suspect you're falling victim to some of the bias you insist can be the only reason to disagree with you; you have had bad experiences with limbing in the past and don't want to be reminded. Again, I don't think your points are without merit, just not as compelling as you claim.

Edited by Hax DB Header, 06 July 2012 - 11:53 PM.

[Nekki Basara]

CCC Dober, on 23 June 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

The reason why legs have been tempting targets in the past was that they had only a fraction of armor
compared to a fully armored torso

Solution:
Split up each arm into 2 different parts (lower, upper) and give each of them full armor and internals
according to standing specifications..

This is just plain wrong. The legs on a mech can carry the same armour as the side torsos, and since it's not split between front and back effectively means they carry MORE armour.

Splitting the arms and leggs into different parts and allowing them to all mount the same amount of armour means that you're going to need a lot more tonnage to cover those spaces and thus have an overall more lightly armoured mech unless you rebalance the number of armour points per ton, which is going to cause all kinds of nerdrage.

The real solution is to stop stripping armour from your legs so you can fit more weapons on.

[Hayashi]

InnerSphereNews, on 14 March 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

What, if any, mechanic will be in place to prevent a large group of single-type weapons from devastating a single location, a problem that has plagued just about every incarnation of MW to date? –Thomas Hogarth
[DAVID] We’ve got a few systems in place to handle that problem. One is having weapons such as lasers do damage over time so that, in order to deliver full damage to a single location, you have to hold your fire on the location, which can be difficult when you and/or your target are moving.
Another consideration is the separate arm and torso aim reticles. They will naturally line up with each other but, whenever you aim, you’ll lead with your arms while the torso catches up. This means that, if you want weapons in both locations to hit the same spot, you’ll have to hold your shot until they all aim at the same point.
An additional aspect of our aiming system is weapon convergence. I touched on this in a post I made in reply to Dev Blog 5, but some of you may have missed it so I’ll copy it over here:
Basically, your targeting systems are always trying to adjust the angle of your weapons so that they converge or focus at a distance of whatever your aiming reticles are pointing at. So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant.
For instance, if you were facing a building, while taking cover right up against it, your convergence would adjust to hit just a short distance in front of you (the distance to the building). When you step out from around that building and fire on an enemy in the distance, your convergence point would automatically begin to adjust, but not instantly. If you shoot too soon, your first shots may converge and cross a short distance in front of you and completely miss the enemy as they pass on either side of him. Or perhaps you were aiming for the centre torso and hit his arms instead, as your aim adjusts towards his centre.

Because of these accuracy adjustments, legging/dearming a 'Mech is going to be VERY difficult in MWO. Some of the best pilots out there will be able to do it, but for the most part, it would be more advisable to aim for the torso. Especially if your target has XL engines. If you split the arm into multiple hitzones each with a fraction of total armour, it biases the game toward PPCs and ballistics that can concentrate damage, which can then remove the arm/leg more easily than is possible at present. If each of the hitzones have the 12 points of armour, then you're looking at an unbreakable leg.

[CCC Dober]

Alright, let me show you the numbers in case you do not understand the angle of the suggestion or can't make sense of it yet.

The original TT had 8 hitzones with an equal chance to hit: 100/8 = 12.5%

1. Head = 12.5%
2. Torso (Center) = 12.5%
3. Torso (Left) = 12.5%
4. Torso (Right) = 12.5%
5. Arm (Left) = 12.5%
6. Arm (Right) = 12.5%
7. Leg (Left) = 12.5%
8. Leg (Right) = 12.5%

Now if you look at the Atlas concept art as an example, you will notice that the appearance suggests different hit percentages, where legs and arms are much easier to hit as the original 12.5% would indicate. Pretty much all of them reach 100% the closer the distance.

This is where the original TT rules come apart at the seams. The boardgame was designed with the premise that each hitzone is equally easy/hard to hit, depending on the roll of dice. The armor distribution works in a similar way, maximizing the protection of the legs to be roughly on par with the torso. Look at the Atlas AS7-D armor layout for reference. Values in brackets are rear armor.

1. Head = 9
2. Torso (Center) = 47 (14)
3. Torso (Left) = 32 (10)
4. Torso (Right) = 32 (10)
5. Arm (Left) = 34
6. Arm (Right) = 34
7. Leg (Left) = 41
8. Leg (Right) = 41

3 hitzones for the torso and 2 for the legs with roughly equal amounts of armor for both torso and mobility as a whole (weaker rear torso neatly offsets the lower sum of leg armor in general). The reason is simple: a mobility kill is about as deadly as a breached reactor. The original numbers make sense now, don't they? The concentrated damage necessary to remove the Mech from the field is either 47 (Center Torso -> blown reactor) or 41 (any leg) plus internal structure. It is about even. You can consider that fair.

So in MW:O we are looking now at considerably higher hit percentages because the rules of the environment have changed: realtime, skill based, intelligent aiming, no modifiers, no dice. Furthermore the percentages to hit are influenced by the proportions of each hitbox, distance to target, lag and speed. In addition to this people's aim isn't influenced by modifiers and they can actively target weak armor or create weaknesses. It is fairly easy to see why legs and arms have become so incredibly fragile in past MW pc games as opposed to the original TT rules. The legs alone make up ~50% of the total Mech's height and are harder to miss than to hit. Arms are about as easy to hit, although their size won't suggest this. Most shots being aimed center mass naturally drift towards them, especially when the target moves faster/evades (which happens a lot). And there is something to be said about deliberate aiming that is not influenced by dice.

Of all the hitzones mentioned above, only the head remains harder to hit than the rest. Not on all Mechs, mind. I'm looking at certain balloon shaped cockpits that are accidents waiting to happen. Factor in people's ability to actively exploit perceived or real weaknesses and you see just how much of a use the original TT rules are in a MW pc game. In short: not so much. The human eye/aim is miles better than a fickle die giving you random numbers and it really doesn't help when the rules are based on the latter while the former can mercilessly exploit the gaps in game design (TT vs PC).

There is a discrepancy in game design where the dice get replaced with something vastly superior. If this was the case in TT, the game would have been built around the fact. You can be sure of that. My suggestion aims at leveling the playing field again and bring about parity between TT and PC as much as possible. The original TT game was more fair on average than all MW pc games simply because a roll of dice determined any outcome. Now we don't have to deal with dice anymore, but human intelligence, reflexes and aim. I think its high time to bring fairness of the TT back into the game, especially because this MW reboot is a unique chance to translate the game better than ever before.

Truth be told, I felt that all this was pretty much self-explanatory as I took the basic knowledge of the mechanics and values for granted (in both environments). Since certain people have difficulties to understand all this, some even try to insinuate things and even a mod had to chime in ... well I hope it's all clearer now. What I don't want to do is further detail a solution because that may very well limit the imagination of anybody involved in the development process. Especially those who can make use of the general idea and hopefully do something about it.

The additional information should be more than enough (I hope) and also explains why legging and stripping weapons became problematic in the first place, ever since the first incarnation of the game on pc. It has nothing to do with craftiness or clever play, rest assured. It's an exploit of a system that worked well in TT, but not on pc with a copy and paste translation of the rules. As I said, it's an exploit, no more no less. I can admit that freely and don't see a reason why this shall stand and continue to pester coming generations of MW fans. Can I live with legged and Mechs that are stripped of weapons? Sure, I've been rolling with the punches ever since. Do I think that it makes the game better and friendlier in general? Certainly not with the amount of trolling and griefing on display nowadays.

This topic is bigger than any of us and demands a healthy amount of professional curtesy. So if you have an idea, any idea, how to make things better in this regard, please don't hold back. If you don't see a problem, despite the added information, then I advise you to look elsewhere. It's a complex problem that has been dealt with in a cursory fashion since the series made its first steps. Such obvious blunders are far from the quality I have come to associate MW:O with. You also need to see and understand the bigger picture and what's at stake here. The minimum requirement is a sense for fair play and I see this fact alone has clouded judgement or led to unworthy comments in this regard. Professional curtesy 101 gents, nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your attention.

[x Mimic x]

Son Of Jaak, on 23 June 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

The Mechwarrior franchise is first and foremost supposed to be a simulation. As a simulation, having the legs as one hit box never made sense to me as most legs are jointed and as such should at minimum have two hit boxes.

For the love of God stop talking about simulation! What you simulate? Things that do not exist! The balance of the game is what matters else is secondary.

[Nekki Basara]

CCC Dober, on 07 July 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

Alright, let me show you the numbers in case you do not understand the angle of the suggestion or can't make sense of it yet.

The original TT had 8 hitzones with an equal chance to hit: 100/8 = 12.5%

1. Head = 12.5%
2. Torso (Center) = 12.5%
3. Torso (Left) = 12.5%
4. Torso (Right) = 12.5%
5. Arm (Left) = 12.5%
6. Arm (Right) = 12.5%
7. Leg (Left) = 12.5%
8. Leg (Right) = 12.5%

Jesus christ this is so damn wrong. I'm not even going to address the remainder of your post until you go roll 2D6 a bunch of times or, ye know, just google it.

Seriously, have you ever even LOOKED at the tabletop rules?

[marcus elgin]

If the OP's argument held any merit (it doesn't) wouldn't the main balance concern be the cockpit? The instakill, lightly protected section is a damn sight more attractive then doing the equivalent to a side torso worth of damage just to slow down a mech's movement speed/ take out some of it's weapons.