109 replies to this topic

[lazorbeamz]

If you destroy a side torso, then you should not lose an arm.

Discuss.

[Jay Leon Hart]

lazorbeamz, on 17 November 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

If you destroy a side torso, then you should not lose an arm.

Discuss.

Why should you not lose the arm?

Elaborate.

[Kotzi]

There is nothing to discuss.

[The Lighthouse]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 November 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

Why should you not lose the arm?

Elaborate.

Kotzi, on 17 November 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

There is nothing to discuss.

...I guess these comments show why this place is often called "Brown Sea".


It is such a brilliant idea, again from actually competent Mechwarrior 4 developers 17 years ago. It solved several problems at once.

1) Mechs in general got much, much durable AND reliable. Putting weapons on arms is no longer a gamble unlike previous mechwarriors or this game.

2) Thus it also lessened the bad hitbox issue a lot. Your mech, Thanatos, has lost the right side torso? That's too bad, but you still have missiles in your arm! And then PGI ports this mech and Thanatos is now the one of the worst heavy mechs you can buy in the game.

With things like separated missile pods, no XL death nonsense, and safe-arm against torso destruction, mechs in Mechwarrior 4 were far more durable, reliable and especially extremely resistant against pinpoint alpha-strike.... despite the fact that lasers in MW4 are all insta-hit-full-damage hitscan weapons and there is no silly things like ghost heat.

Mechwarrior Online, in contrast, despite all of those "safe" measures such as ghost heat, still massively suffers alpha-strike issues.

Sigh, MWO really need some sane, common-sense ideas instead of ludicrous ideas such as Ghost Heat, Gauss charging, and other insane nonsense. Separating torso and arm destruction would be a good start.

Edited by The Lighthouse, 17 November 2017 - 03:11 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

The Lighthouse, on 17 November 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

...I guess these comments show why this place is often called "Brown Sea".

If someone wants to discuss a change, there needs to be a reason for that change, or there is no discussion to be had.

"Add VTOLs" is not a point of discussion, it is a request.

The Lighthouse, on 17 November 2017 - 03:07 AM, said:

With things like separated missile pods

This is something we could do with. My TBRs, MCIIs, GRFs, TDRs, SMNs, WHMs, HBRs, BSWs & EBJs would be very grateful.

[Nema Nabojiv]

lazorbeamz, on 17 November 2017 - 02:52 AM, said:

Discuss.

No questions about it.

Also, IS XL should destroy arm when torso is destroyed. Instead of you know, killing you.

Edited by Nema Nabojiv, 17 November 2017 - 03:19 AM.

[Wolfways]

I always thought it was weird that a destroyed side torso meant completely blown off. I mean it's still part of the torso so you would think it would take way more damage to actually remove that part from the mech than the damage needed to destroy the components in that area.
As for whether the arm would still work after the side torso had taken so much damage that all the components were destroyed... again I suppose it depends on how badly damage the side torso is.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Its not about what is logical, its about gameplay and ttk, and the fact ram mounted weapons are already considered as a disadvantage because too low and too wide.

[Kotzi]

Even if we are playing a fictional Big-stompy-robot game, there has to be at least some kind logic. Magically not loosing an arm when you destroy that part where that arms is attached to sounds not reasonable.

[Exard3k]

New proposal: if you lose the CT, you should not lose the side torsos

[Paigan]

I just want to quickly contribute that Jay and kotzi already wrote what I would have written (albeit in a much more direct and expressive form, that people with the inability to discuss and self-reflect would certainly have conceived as an insult and would probably have reported me for that).

Thanks to those two for fighting for reason and proper discussion culture.

If someone has a suggestion (especially a pretty weird one) it's his obligation to elaborate and provide arguments. Not the other way around.

Edited by Paigan, 17 November 2017 - 03:52 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Kotzi, on 17 November 2017 - 03:35 AM, said:

Even if we are playing a fictional Big-stompy-robot game, there has to be at least some kind logic.

1.Any kind of logic or common sense will instantly invalidate the concept of 20 meters tall bipedal space robots with high center of mass able, on average, to shoot at 500 meters.

2.Increasing TTK and making arm mounted weapons advantageous to use is a good thing for gameplay.

[Kotzi]

1. Still you need some restrictions, otherwise why not make 100 ton Atlas beeing able to move like a medium mech to make them viable?
2. You are contradicting yourself. Buffing arm mounted weapons increase time to kill?

Just leave that minimum of tactical part that we still have. I dont want one big hitbox. I want to be able to decide where to shoot and that it does make a different at which part of the mech you are shooting at.

[Tarogato]

In my opinion, taking breakaway arms out of the game removes most of the incentive toward aiming for side torsos. If aiming for a side torso means I do not remove the equipment in the arm, then I won't aim for the side torso, I'll aim for the CT. And that would just be the default strategy for everything... always aim CT. Which is a lot more boring. At least with breakaway arms, there's good reason to specifically target a side torso - it's not a wasted effort.

Also, I like how mechs fall apart when you cleave off their side torsos. Aesthetically, I find it satisfying.

Edited by Tarogato, 17 November 2017 - 05:02 AM.

[Wolfways]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

Its not about what is logical, its about gameplay and ttk, and the fact ram mounted weapons are already considered as a disadvantage because too low and too wide.

Yet I've seen so many matches lost because one team had a last mech with only torso weapons (or refused to release the arm lock) and couldn't shoot back at an enemy on higher ground.

Tarogato, on 17 November 2017 - 05:01 AM, said:

In my opinion, taking breakaway arms out of the game removes most of the incentive toward aiming for side torsos. If aiming for a side torso means I do not remove the equipment in the arm, then I won't aim for the side torso, I'll aim for the CT. And that would just be the default strategy for everything... always aim CT. Which is a lot more boring. At least with breakaway arms, there's good reason to specifically target a side torso - it's not a wasted effort.

Also, I like how mechs fall apart when you cleave off their side torsos. Aesthetically, I find it satisfying.

Or you could shoot at the arm...

Also, in case noone has noticed, when a leg is destroyed you don't actually lose the leg. If a leg can be "destroyed" but still there why can't a side torso?

Edited by Wolfways, 17 November 2017 - 05:48 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Wolfways, on 17 November 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Also, in case noone has noticed, when a leg is destroyed you don't actually lose the leg. If a leg can be "destroyed" but still there why can't a side torso?

Didn't leg destruction in MW2 make you a turret? Or was that MW3?

I'm glad that went away, but it has been done before.

[Wolfways]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 November 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

Didn't leg destruction in MW2 make you a turret? Or was that MW3?

I'm glad that went away, but it has been done before.

Yes, walking with a limp (or just walking slowly) is better. But it does make a case for a "destroyed" part of a mech not being completely blown off.

[Lily from animove]

destroyed means, its superbroken, so broken it cannot support to hold the arm anymore. Structure broken, arm falls off.
Thats why it is called destroyed, and not damaged.

[Kotzi]

I would love if they implemented this kind of destructible gamemechanics. Loosing a leg. Falling down, try to fight stationary. Just down let mechs be immobilized, that was really bad in previous games.

[Koniving]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 November 2017 - 02:55 AM, said:

Why should you not lose the arm?

Elaborate.

MW4.
MW3 after an update.
MW5: Mercs gamescom demonstration 2016. Raven loses BOTH side torsos and still has fully functional arms, before an ammo explosion kills it.
Edit: The one on youtube played by unknown... but its plastered everywhere, not the one actually played by Russ at the Gamescom demo, that one died a different way.

Edit: (You can tell the difference by watching the point where the building is destroyed. Russ STARES at the tower destruction so you can see it showcased in full glory. The "other guy" is more worried about the Raven and effectively ignores the tower's showcased destructibility).

Edited by Koniving, 17 November 2017 - 06:24 AM.