79 replies to this topic

[AlphaKale]

Taking out weapons is still just a disable. There's a time and a place for any tactic, including trying to disarm an opponent (please forgive the pun) vs. just coring them or taking out the cockpit. I can see the advantage of a lighter scout unit trying to take out the missiles on a catapult; with its long-range armament offline the catapult is pretty much useless, and the scout can safely run away after doing it without worrying about a back full of missiles. That said, a really good scout pilot would be able to do a cockpit kill for the same effort, completely eliminating the threat. I think you'll see different strategies evolve as player skill levels improve too.

Brenden, on 22 July 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Then aim for the f*cking head, quickest way to kill the poor *******. And, it saves on armour, weapons and other componites you might get as part of salvage. Why waste the whole then when you can kill the Atlas quickly and move on?

FYI: pretty sure the devs said there would be no salvage mechanic.

[Skadi]

Brenden, on 22 July 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Then aim for the f*cking head, quickest way to kill the poor *******. And, it saves on armour, weapons and other componites you might get as part of salvage. Why waste the whole then when you can kill the Atlas quickly and move on?

they said we dont get salvage, and hell who knows what they may do to the atlas cockpit, the head isnt the cockpit, the EYE is... i think alot of people who go around claiming atlases are going to be ezhedshutz dont realize this (no offense) i realy think there gonna be harder to headshot than we think...

[Bloodweaver]

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

This ain't a 1v1. People are shooting at you. I want my target to die ASAP. I don't care if his arm has a giant cannon of epic proportions, I want his torso cored, so that his Mech will stop functioning entirely.

You should care, since you bring up team mechanics. That makes it all the more important to think strategically rather than "SEE ENEMY, SHOOT TIL DEAD". You don't need to destroy all opponents to emerge victorious; you just need to make them unable to win. Killing them is one way to do this. Taking away their guns is another. And if the latter is easier -as it is in a case where 50% of a mech's firepower is in a single arm, which is much less durable than its engine location- then it is the obviously best choice.

[Brenden]

Well even if there is no salvage mechanic, if you want the guy killed fast then aim for the f*cking head.

[Bloodweaver]

ManDaisy, on 22 July 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

http://objection.mrd...o.php?n=5999678

Your GIF didn't address my actual point at all. Arms are vulnerable because in MW games, you can aim your fire very precisely. In TT, from which all the armor values derive, you can't. This makes arms more vulnerable in videogame form than they were originally designed to be.

[Shiinore]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

That makes it all the more important to think strategically

Then let's think about this strategically.

I'm investing more firepower and time to take off the opponent's arms instead of punching a hole through his CT and bringing him down altogether. Then I have to kill his CT anyway to bring him down. That's more ammo I have to spend on one Mech, and more time I'm allowing his teammates to get shots in at me.

And in what situation is the arm of a Mech going to be easier to hit than the torso? Maybe if he's facing to the side, but that assumes that they're just going to ignore you and let you shoot them the entire time.

Edited by Shiinore, 22 July 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Brenden]

You know, I wonder WHAT a Jagermech pilot will do when their four armed sniper ends up with no arms. Ram the target? Jump on it, if they have the jets or just go out there and just use whatever backups they have.

[Skadi]

Brenden, on 22 July 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

You know, I wonder WHAT a Jagermech pilot will do when their four armed sniper ends up with no arms. Ram the target? Jump on it, if they have the jets or just go out there and just use whatever backups they have.

from the artwork i saw it has 3 laser hardpoints... (2 medium and 1 small i think?)

[Shadowscythe]

Brenden, on 22 July 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Then aim for the f*cking head, quickest way to kill the poor *******. And, it saves on armour, weapons and other componites you might get as part of salvage. Why waste the whole then when you can kill the Atlas quickly and move on?

LOL, this reminded me of my favorite clip so far 2:12 in http://mwomercs.com/...deo/LbC7w9SN3oE
It never gets old

Brenden, on 22 July 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

You know, I wonder WHAT a Jagermech pilot will do when their four armed sniper ends up with no arms. Ram the target? Jump on it, if they have the jets or just go out there and just use whatever backups they have.

Run, ram, and spot
Oh, and 2 ML I think

Edited by Shadowscythe, 22 July 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Brenden]

Shadowscythe, on 22 July 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

LOL, this reminded me of my favorite clip so far 2:12 in http://mwomercs.com/...deo/LbC7w9SN3oE
It never gets old



Run, ram, and spot
Oh, and 2 ML I think

THATS WHAT IM SAYING.
If it works, go for it. You will see me out there with a Hunchback and a Gauss rifle picking at your catapults. Where is the head on that you may ask?
WHEREVER I FIRE MY SLUG AND IT HITS.

[Bloodweaver]

"The entire time"? We're talking about a few seconds. Arms have much, much less armor than CTs do. That's why I said they're more vulnerable - not "easier to hit".

It doesn't assume that he's just going to ignore me - in fact, it seems you are assuming that I'm just going to stand there. He will move - and that is irrelevant, because so will I.

Victory is not synonymous with being alive. Defeat is not synonymous with death. By investing firepower and time to disarm your opponent, you turn him into a sitting duck. Well, walking duck, unless you take out his legs as well. But a duck nonetheless. If you can decrease his value as a combatant by 50% or more, while using only 50% of the firepower it would take to kill him entirely, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand why that's a good tactic. Especially when you factor in other elements as well - like the fact that you put out 50 points of damage a lot faster than you can put out 100, for example. Or range differences. If you have a strong short range arsenal, and you run up against a base-variant Centurion, it makes a lot of sense to rip off his AC/10 before shredding his engine apart. Why? Because at close range his LRMs are useless, meaning he only has two medium lasers, which are torso-mounted(and thus less mobile), no jump jets, and a pathetic top speed for a 50-ton mech. Take out the AC, get behind him, pound him into the ground. Easy. Being on a team only increases the value of disarming your enemy; you make any of your teammate's future encounters with this enemy vastly more survivable. If he gets away, or you have to turn your attention to a different target, and your lancemate in a Jenner runs up against the now-AC-less Centurion, it's an easy kill even for him. That is strategy.

Put more simply, disarming your opponents is a valid tactic because it's been used with great success, both in real life and in MW games.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 22 July 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

You should care, since you bring up team mechanics. That makes it all the more important to think strategically rather than "SEE ENEMY, SHOOT TIL DEAD". You don't need to destroy all opponents to emerge victorious; you just need to make them unable to win. Killing them is one way to do this. Taking away their guns is another. And if the latter is easier -as it is in a case where 50% of a mech's firepower is in a single arm, which is much less durable than its engine location- then it is the obviously best choice.

Well this really depends on the mech. The Centurion mounts its AC/10 in its arm, but its 2 medium lasers and the LRM are torso mounted, so it will maintin a large portion of firepower even with the loss of its arm. An Awesome has 2 of its 3 PPC's mounted in the torso, while the Atlas has nearly all its weapons torso mounted. Even the Catapult would still possess 4 medium lasers after the loss of both arms, and the Jagermech would have 2. The most affected mechs with the use of this tactic would be the lights, since all of them save the Spider have most of their weapons in the arms, compounded by lighter armor and internal structure. Even then the Commando and Jenner would still have torso SRMs.

[Brenden]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

"The entire time"? We're talking about a few seconds. Arms have much, much less armor than CTs do. That's why I said they're more vulnerable - not "easier to hit".

It doesn't assume that he's just going to ignore me - in fact, it seems you are assuming that I'm just going to stand there. He will move - and that is irrelevant, because so will I.

Victory is not synonymous with being alive. Defeat is not synonymous with death. By investing firepower and time to disarm your opponent, you turn him into a sitting duck. Well, walking duck, unless you take out his legs as well. But a duck nonetheless. If you can decrease his value as a combatant by 50% or more, while using only 50% of the firepower it would take to kill him entirely, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand why that's a good tactic. Especially when you factor in other elements as well - for example, range differences. If you have a strong short range arsenal, and you run up against a base-variant Centurion, it makes a lot of sense to rip off his AC/10 before shredding his engine apart. Why? Because at close range his LRMs are useless, meaning he only has two medium lasers, which are torso-mounted(and thus less mobile), no jump jets, and a pathetic top speed for a 50-ton mech. Take out the AC, get behind him, pound him into the ground. Easy.

Put more simply, disarming your opponents is a valid tactic because it's been used with great success, both in real life and in MW games.

Or have one guy distracting him up close so that he doesn't have time to see you or pay attention, have an Atlas or something with ALOT of SRMs and fire them all into his back, thus destroying the rear armour to the point of where a pebble can punch a hole in it. Then, as he turns around to engage the SRM jumkie, have your Awesome on the ridge fire ALL the PPCs into his back, thus killing him.

[Scorpioneldar]

so shall we next complain that the head on an atlas is to obvious or easy a target cause it is a huge white freaking skull
these things come with the mech each has different strengths and weaknesses that you really should know about before you get in and pilot
also think torso twisting it's defensive not just aggressive a great piolt knows how to spread out the dammage all around his mech and show the parts he wants you to hit while hiding the valuable AC20 (randomly picked wepon) in his left arm while he closes (in this case rotate so the left arm is further back ) if he is real smart he has set up his weapons with his twisting and dammage spreads in mind before he goes in
and sometimes certain things only fit in certain places and everyone is going to know this
so the question is do these mechs offer something that make up for these weaknesses (for example atlas has huge ******* head but also is 100 tons of mean fat killing machine)
or can you compensate for the weakness (use of cover and presented facing)
whomever can take advantage of enemy weaknesses and mitigate their own will ussualy win (unless completely out classed or has poor luck/enemy gets lucky)

[Acis]

idk, wasting time destroying the arms seems like just that, a waste of time. In the time it takes to shoot the arms off you could have taken out the cockpit or a leg (to make them an easier target.) Plus taking out the arms does NOT mean they are a sitting duck, as others have pointed out there are weapons in torsos and some mechs even have them on the shoulders.

[Shiinore]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

"The entire time"? We're talking about a few seconds. Arms have much, much less armor than CTs do. That's why I said they're more vulnerable - not "easier to hit".

It doesn't assume that he's just going to ignore me - in fact, it seems you are assuming that I'm just going to stand there. He will move - and that is irrelevant, because so will I.

Victory is not synonymous with being alive. Defeat is not synonymous with death. By investing firepower and time to disarm your opponent, you turn him into a sitting duck. Well, walking duck, unless you take out his legs as well. But a duck nonetheless. If you can decrease his value as a combatant by 50% or more, while using only 50% of the firepower it would take to kill him entirely, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand why that's a good tactic. Especially when you factor in other elements as well - for example, range differences. If you have a strong short range arsenal, and you run up against a base-variant Centurion, it makes a lot of sense to rip off his AC/10 before shredding his engine apart. Why? Because at close range his LRMs are useless, meaning he only has two medium lasers, which are torso-mounted(and thus less mobile), no jump jets, and a pathetic top speed for a 50-ton mech. Take out the AC, get behind him, pound him into the ground. Easy.

Put more simply, disarming your opponents is a valid tactic because it's been used with great success, both in real life and in MW games.

If the arm isn't easier to hit, it's not worth focusing. Especially if you're a strong close-range brawler. Even if you strip off his weapon and reduce his capability as a fighter, he's still a combatant on the field. Last I checked, 0% is still lower than 50%. The 30 damage you invested in getting his arm off could've been 30 damage put towards his CT, which rids him of all weapons and functionality entirely.

Even if you were to remove his weapons entirely, if you deem your job "good enough" and then waltz off to your next target, you're letting that target roam about the map and capture your base. If you don't want that, you have to kill them- so you'd have to bore through his CT anyway. There isn't any tactical advantage to aiming specifically for the arms. If you want good tactics, eliminate that player from the battle entirely. There's no sense in prolonging the fight.

Simply killing the opposition has also been a valid tactic in MW and real life. Turns out, it's also much easier.

Edited by Shiinore, 22 July 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Nacon]

I'm sure he'll learn once he get in the game.

Just hope he will have the honor to admit his mistake.

[Grey Weasel]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

You will if you're able to think tactically. A base-variant Centurion without its right arm is pretty useless at close range. Same goes for the Dragon.

I don't think the Jagermech will suffer much from this sort of approach. First off, it's a long-range fighter; any hits it receives will be less accurate. And second, its arms are identical; you'd have to take them BOTH off to really benefit from the approach.

The advantage of having a heavy weapon in the arm is that it makes that weapon a lot more mobile, and also improves your accuracy because allows you to aim it in more directions. Whether or not that advantage is worth the cost in vulnerability, well... depends on the game mechanics(which we don't know yet) and the particular mech's purpose(which can be changed).

I do, however, think that the "destroy a side torso = arm falls off" mechanic should be eliminated. I believe MW4 did away with it - although that game is hardly a model to which PGI should aspire, this particular element would improve arm survivability, which is necessary due to the presence of targeting accuracy in a game that was originally designed without anything of the sort.

To this I ask why? If you destroy the part the arm is attached to, does the arm magically float there, attached to nothing but still operational? What's your thinking on this?

[Skadi]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

"The entire time"? We're talking about a few seconds. Arms have much, much less armor than CTs do. That's why I said they're more vulnerable - not "easier to hit".

It doesn't assume that he's just going to ignore me - in fact, it seems you are assuming that I'm just going to stand there. He will move - and that is irrelevant, because so will I.

Victory is not synonymous with being alive. Defeat is not synonymous with death. By investing firepower and time to disarm your opponent, you turn him into a sitting duck. Well, walking duck, unless you take out his legs as well. But a duck nonetheless. If you can decrease his value as a combatant by 50% or more, while using only 50% of the firepower it would take to kill him entirely, it shouldn't be that difficult to understand why that's a good tactic. Especially when you factor in other elements as well - like the fact that you put out 50 points of damage a lot faster than you can put out 100, for example. Or range differences. If you have a strong short range arsenal, and you run up against a base-variant Centurion, it makes a lot of sense to rip off his AC/10 before shredding his engine apart. Why? Because at close range his LRMs are useless, meaning he only has two medium lasers, which are torso-mounted(and thus less mobile), no jump jets, and a pathetic top speed for a 50-ton mech. Take out the AC, get behind him, pound him into the ground. Easy. Being on a team only increases the value of disarming your enemy; you make any of your teammate's future encounters with this enemy vastly more survivable. If he gets away, or you have to turn your attention to a different target, and your lancemate in a Jenner runs up against the now-AC-less Centurion, it's an easy kill even for him. That is strategy.

Put more simply, disarming your opponents is a valid tactic because it's been used with great success, both in real life and in MW games.

was deciding if i realy wanted to read thatt wall of text, but uh who the hell says arms are weak and we can pluck them off at will? for all we know they may have doubled, hell quadtripled armor on all mechs, we cant be sure about it we can only make pathetic attempts to speculate, if i was going to engage in a fight head on with anything, the first thing i am for is the CT, simply because its the easiest part to hit and its never a wasted shot because to take them down you haft to go for the torso or the legs, and honestly legs are prolly harder to hit with someweapons than a oversized body.

Edited by Skadi, 22 July 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[Bloodweaver]

Tincan Nightmare, on 22 July 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

Well this really depends on the mech. The Centurion mounts its AC/10 in its arm, but its 2 medium lasers and the LRM are torso mounted, so it will maintin a large portion of firepower even with the loss of its arm. An Awesome has 2 of its 3 PPC's mounted in the torso, while the Atlas has nearly all its weapons torso mounted. Even the Catapult would still possess 4 medium lasers after the loss of both arms, and the Jagermech would have 2. The most affected mechs with the use of this tactic would be the lights, since all of them save the Spider have most of their weapons in the arms, compounded by lighter armor and internal structure. Even then the Commando and Jenner would still have torso SRMs.

Of course it depends on the mech. That's why I'm talking specifically about the Centurion in its base variant. The LRM wouldn't matter at short range, though(thus the 50% figure for loss in firepower at short range), and even the medium lasers would suffer at short range due to their torso placement and the mech's slow speed.