79 replies to this topic

[Waffles 2pt0]

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

General rule of thumb...

Ay, ya can't do much damage wi' that.

[Bloodweaver]

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

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.

It's worth focusing if the payoff is sufficient. If your objective is to keep your enemy from destroying you and your allies, leaving him incapacitated is just as good as leaving him dead. The result on the battlefield is the same - a guy that can't fight because he has no gun is no more of a threat than one who can't fight because he's dead. The key phrase in both cases is "can't fight."

The capture-the-base element is not one I'm going to address, because that's a specific situation that calls for specific tactics. It doesn't apply to this conversation. I could just as easily say "what if your objective is to capture the enemy pilots?"

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

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

This is incorrect. When one nation goes to war with another, they don't generally immediately attack the manufacturing, administrative, and infrastructure elements that make it actually run. They would if they could, but the enemy has forces of its own, and these need to be engaged in order to eventually get to the juicier targets. First you have to disable, or at least minimize, his own ability to engage. The objective of combat is not to kill - this is the objective of a murderer, not a combatant. The objective of combat is to incapacitate. It just so happens that killing is usually -not always- the easiest, quickest, and most efficient way to achieve this.

[Bloodweaver]

Grey Weasel, on 22 July 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

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?

My thinking is based more on game mechanics than it is on logic, admittedly. An unfortunate necessity TT games had randomized hit tables based off of dice rolls. The videogames don't, meaning that weapons will always hit wherever the crosshairs are pointed, every time. This breaks some elements of the game. Having arms remain usable despite torso loss is just a way of offsetting this added vulnerability due to weapon accuracy.

If you mean, "how would you implement this without it looking retarded," I don't know. Previous MW games didn't actually show torso sections being destroyed; even when fully destroyed they remained visible on the mech, so it wouldn't have been difficult to leave the arms attached. MW4 did this, as I recall. If MW:O has torso sections actually disappearing once destroyed, first of all, that is AWESOME, but one possibility would be to leave endoskeletal remnants showing. Maybe with the attached arm locked in a standard position to represent some loss of function.

[Bloodweaver]

Skadi, on 22 July 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

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.

Even if armor is doubled(last I heard, it is), that doesn't apply to just the arms, does it? Meaning arms are still less armored than torsos. Meaning they are more vulnerable.

It depends on your opponent. There is no such thing as a universally supreme strategy. For example, in MW4's single-player missions, whenever I saw a Catapult I'd always take out its missile-launcher arms before doing anything else to it. This was due to the fact LRMs were overpowered and armor values were too high. If I saw a Thanatos, I'd usually knock off its LBX arm first before moving in to close range. Different mechs would, and different situations will, call for different tactics. It all depends.

[Shiinore]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

It's worth focusing if the payoff is sufficient. If your objective is to keep your enemy from destroying you and your allies, leaving him incapacitated is just as good as leaving him dead. The result on the battlefield is the same - a guy that can't fight because he has no gun is no more of a threat than one who can't fight because he's dead. The key phrase in both cases is "can't fight."

The capture-the-base element is not one I'm going to address, because that's a specific situation that calls for specific tactics. It doesn't apply to this conversation. I could just as easily say "what if your objective is to capture the enemy pilots?"


This is incorrect. When one nation goes to war with another, they don't generally immediately attack the manufacturing, administrative, and infrastructure elements that make it actually run. They would if they could, but the enemy has forces of its own, and these need to be engaged in order to eventually get to the juicier targets. First you have to disable, or at least minimize, his own ability to engage. The objective of combat is not to kill - this is the objective of a murderer, not a combatant. The objective of combat is to incapacitate. It just so happens that killing is usually -not always- the easiest, quickest, and most efficient way to achieve this.

Leaving him incapacitated is worse if it ends up taking more time and more firepower. The key being one solution punches him down as fast as possible. You might leave the big weapons intact, but you're trading DPS for the amount of time you're engaged on a single target. Picking away at his assets takes longer, takes more ammo and allows them more time to chip at you with remaining weapons. He might get off bigger shots, but the more you draw out the fight picking off the weapons, the more salvos you're allowing him to get off on you. No matter how you look at it, damage is damage.

And leaving them alive is counter-productive to any game mode. If it's a deathmatch, your objective is to kill- not disable. It would make no sense to go through the trouble of disarming your opponent if the purpose of the game mode is to destroy them. If you have a base in that game mode, you're enabling him to become a capper.

A combatant's role is to engage in combat. In combat, it's wise to neutralize your opponent in the most efficient way possible. Coring saves ammo, time and removes a player from the opposition. That is more efficient than prolonging your engagement on one target to disable their weapon systems.



If you honestly, with all your heart believe that being engaged on a single target for a longer amount of time and slowly taking all of his weapons is a better solution- by all means, do so when you have access to the game. But don't be too surprised when you're cored out before you can make much progress.

[Shadowscythe]

Skadi, on 22 July 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

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.

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Even if armor is doubled(last I heard, it is), that doesn't apply to just the arms, does it? Meaning arms are still less armored than torsos. Meaning they are more vulnerable.

It depends on your opponent. There is no such thing as a universally supreme strategy. For example, in MW4's single-player missions, whenever I saw a Catapult I'd always take out its missile-launcher arms before doing anything else to it. This was due to the fact LRMs were overpowered and armor values were too high. If I saw a Thanatos, I'd usually knock off its LBX arm first before moving in to close range. Different mechs would, and different situations will, call for different tactics. It all depends.

Also depends on the mechwarrior's mech you are shooting at
Some may have messed with their armor point placement.....Well. unless they just maxed armor, then yes, the CT will still have more armor than 1 arm...

But also depends on the mech's tonnage....Coring a light could be WAY easier than trying to aim for arm stubs (well, most likely )

Edited by Shadowscythe, 22 July 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Waffles 2pt0]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

Previous MW games didn't actually show torso sections being destroyed; even when fully destroyed they remained visible on the mech, so it wouldn't have been difficult to leave the arms attached.

[REDACTED] due to TT flashbacks...

No side torso, though still have arm attached? Gosh, I hope it is not implemented this way.

Edited by S Morgenstern, 22 July 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[CCC Dober]

I believe that those Mechs with bad hitboxes will continue to hump hills like they did in MW4. Mechs like the Cat have it coming, no doubt about it. That is not because it's a badly designed Mech, more because the weapons layout is very well known. In past games the Cat was able to pack dual Arrow IVs and these things hurt like hell. Removing them prematurely was just good business, unless they didn't pose a serious threat to you (i.e. zippy Mechs, jump snipers with plenty of cover). In return, the better Cat players maintained their range to keep those launchers spitting death and destruction, possibly chewing through 30+ or more shots each. It's not so much about surviving in the Cat, that's the easy part, but to keep up the barrages. And for that you need to keep the launchers alive. Seriously, you can't expect to do that on the frontline for more than a few seconds. As far as the Centurion goes, it appears that the Gauss Rifle would be the best option to maintain range. Seeing that the Hunchie is a dedicated brawler already, it would be rather wasteful to force the Centurion into the same role with such a glaring and easy to exploit weakness (gigantic arm hitbox). Maybe the devs can scale it down a notch, but I wouldn't hold my breath tbh.

[Scorpioneldar]

Bloodweaver, on 22 July 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

It's worth focusing if the payoff is sufficient. If your objective is to keep your enemy from destroying you and your allies, leaving him incapacitated is just as good as leaving him dead. The result on the battlefield is the same - a guy that can't fight because he has no gun is no more of a threat than one who can't fight because he's dead. The key phrase in both cases is "can't fight."

The capture-the-base element is not one I'm going to address, because that's a specific situation that calls for specific tactics. It doesn't apply to this conversation. I could just as easily say "what if your objective is to capture the enemy pilots?"


This is incorrect. When one nation goes to war with another, they don't generally immediately attack the manufacturing, administrative, and infrastructure elements that make it actually run. They would if they could, but the enemy has forces of its own, and these need to be engaged in order to eventually get to the juicier targets. First you have to disable, or at least minimize, his own ability to engage. The objective of combat is not to kill - this is the objective of a murderer, not a combatant. The objective of combat is to incapacitate. It just so happens that killing is usually -not always- the easiest, quickest, and most efficient way to achieve this.

i would aggre with you for the most part but just for the sake of argument 3 things
1 just because a man has no weapons (gun knife anything sharp or blunt can become a weapon to in a pinch) he still has his hands and legs unless he is unconscious tied up or missing his limbs (the first 2 aren't foolproof either he can wake up or body tackle you and maybe even hide something sharp to cut his way out with right before using said thing to gut you) in this game if it can jump (and cent can) they can land on you to do dammage or just flat run into your lighter teammates and knock them down
2 in this game mechs can feed each other targeting data thus even a disarmed mech can and will provide information about enemy deployment where to engage and possibly spoil ambushes
3 many of these games do have a capture enemy base component so disarming a light or medium mech just provides a fast person who will now focus on getting behind you and beating you back to your base and he hopes he can get there fast enough to take it before you can run back to

[Elizander]

Well looking at Quickmech I see my fully armored Hunchback having the following:

CT: 23 armor
LT/RT: 17 armor
LA/RA: 16 armor

Following the double armor rules that have been floating around it'd be:

CT: 46 armor
LT/RT: 34 armor
LA/RA: 32 armor

Chewing through 2 arms is 64 armor + internals for 2 arms instead of just 46 armor for the CT. If I'm going for an arm, I might as well hit the side torso instead and potentially take off an XL engine and additional weapons rather than just an arm. If I miss, I have a good chance to hit the arm or the center torso anyway.

It's fine to aim for arms if you like but I'd much prefer to aim for torsos since they are more efficient. We don't know how hard they will make headshots to get so I'd rather not say "Aim for the head" until we know how easy or hard it is.

Of course this is just my opinion. People can aim for whatever they want (legs included).

[Scorpioneldar]

all the previous said though sometimes you don't have the option to aim at the torso for example i love cat and so does my dad why? because of the high missle launchers and low body thus in some cases i can just poke the missle launchers out above my cover and fire my misslses at you and because my allies provide target data i don't lose much in the way of accuracy especialy if someone is using a narc beacon
so now your choice is ignore me or aim at my launchers
of course you could also try to flank my cover but im constantly on allert for anything that might just decide to do that
when i fight an enemy who has an arm i can take out in one hit and an ac20 or gauss is on that arm then i would rather remove the damage potential than hit his core sometimes
especially if i get the first shot and now he has useless ammo somewhere on his mech that will explode oh so nicely even better if that arm is the ammo one to then boom i still get my torso damage hell i might even get more than i dished out
no disarming does not put them down for good but it does weaken them also if i am fighting one guy and he moves sideways revealing a shot at his friends arm(or anything else) i may well take that shot and weaken the guy my teammate is fighting with and im not gunna say oh well that was not a core shot so i wont do anything
instead i will hurt them whenever and wherever i can for as much damage as i can
head-shot an atlas hell yes core a mech hell yes shot off that LRM 20 take that f-er leg an enemy why not run into a light with my heavy for collison damage and knocking him down why of course

heh tried to post right after myself did not work

[Riffleman]

Nacon, on 22 July 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

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

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

What is that even suposed to mean? Your stating it like it could never be a viable strategy. Mabye once you get some games in, and you see a mech with heavy firepower in the arms (a catapult perhaps) coming around a corner and your alpha strike takes its missile pack off, and you think to yourself eh might as well take the other off too, and you win with very little damage taken in the process, you can admit your mistake.

[Bloodweaver]

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Leaving him incapacitated is worse if it ends up taking more time and more firepower... No matter how you look at it, damage is damage.

Yes, if. But disarming takes LESS time and firepower than coring -not more- and with certain mechs achieves a comparable effect. That's what makes it a valid strategy - whether you personally choose to use it or not. And if it were true that "damage is damage," mechs wouldn't have differing armor values for their various hit locations. That's the whole point of having torso, arm, leg armor. Because damage isn't equal across the spectrum.

Shiinore, on 22 July 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

And leaving them alive is counter-productive to any game mode. If it's a deathmatch, your objective is to kill- not disable. It would make no sense to go through the trouble of disarming your opponent if the purpose of the game mode is to destroy them. If you have a base in that game mode, you're enabling him to become a capper.

A combatant's role is to engage in combat. In combat, it's wise to neutralize your opponent in the most efficient way possible. Coring saves ammo, time and removes a player from the opposition. That is more efficient than prolonging your engagement on one target to disable their weapon systems.

It would make sense to do so when it makes it easier to destroy them, and harder for them to destroy you. Do you play chess? You don't just throw all your pieces in the king's direction. You have to be able to strategize the various elements of your opponent's abilities, and carefully choose which to engage and when. Combat is not simply a matter of throwing bullets at the bad guy until he falls down. It's never been that simple, and never will be, because anybody can learn to gain advantage over such a simple approach. Which then has to be countered by another approach, which itself has to be countered, ad infinitum. What you're suggesting is akin to saying that using catapults in a castle siege is pointless because all it does is damage the walls, not the infantry inside. Or, more accurately, that disabling a sieging army's catapults is pointless because it leaves the enemy infantry alive.

[Sidra]

[Bloodweaver]

^Why? We're (almost) all being civil, and we haven't gone off-topic.

[Sidra]

Hmm true...just wanted to thread jack for a second XD

[Shiinore]

Bloodweaver, on 23 July 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

Yes, if. But disarming takes LESS time and firepower than coring

Edited by Shiinore, 23 July 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Scorpioneldar]

depending on the target and how he spread his armor and wepons that can be true

[Nacon]

Bloodweaver, on 23 July 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

Yes, if. But disarming takes LESS time and firepower than coring

I'm gonna start building all of my mech with no armors on arms and no weapons installed in arms either... just everything in core, just to troll you in a match.

[Shadowscythe]

Nacon, on 23 July 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

I'm gonna start building all of my mech with no armors on arms and no weapons installed in arms either... just everything in core, just to troll you in a match.

LOL, already a plan of mine with the Spider ...Well, minus the trolling part LOL

Edited by Shadowscythe, 23 July 2012 - 12:20 AM.