109 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

New proposal: if you lose both legs, you sit down and become a turret

[Mechrophilia]

Because sometimes a mech's arm sticks out of its forehead!

[Khobai]

you absolutely should lose the arm

however ST and CT should be way harder to kill than they are

its a joke how easy it is to kill a ST especially, its why ISXL doesnt work

[Mole]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

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.

Well since we are just invalidating all logic and common since in that case I want to be able to ride around on a giant unicorn that farts rainbows and fires PPCs out of its horn. I feel like this is reasonable since apparently logic and common sense don't matter.

[Freakin B]

I like the idea of your arm surviving if the torso is destroyed. When a leg is destroyed, it is still physically there but doesn't function properly. This concept could be applied to the arms in a similar way.
The arms would become locked (due to the articulating joints being destroyed and the targeting comp not being able to compensate between the two arms). Also, only ammo stored in that arm would be available to those weapons since the supply lines were destroyed. This would create some extra mechlab considerations for ammo placement.
For energy, in the isolated arm, the cool down could be doubled since it couldn't dissipate heat to the rest of the mech.

Destroying ST's would still take a big chunk out of a mechs combat abilites but it wouldn't be a ~50% reduction. Plus, there would be some interesting builds to try to plan for the ST loss.

[Mole]

Freakin B, on 17 November 2017 - 08:48 AM, said:

I like the idea of your arm surviving if the torso is destroyed. When a leg is destroyed, it is still physically there but doesn't function properly. This concept could be applied to the arms in a similar way.
The arms would become locked (due to the articulating joints being destroyed and the targeting comp not being able to compensate between the two arms). Also, only ammo stored in that arm would be available to those weapons since the supply lines were destroyed. This would create some extra mechlab considerations for ammo placement.
For energy, in the isolated arm, the cool down could be doubled since it couldn't dissipate heat to the rest of the mech.

Destroying ST's would still take a big chunk out of a mechs combat abilites but it wouldn't be a ~50% reduction. Plus, there would be some interesting builds to try to plan for the ST loss.

Okay now with these kinds of stipulations, this idea is starting to sound more reasonable. Another stipulation I would like to add is that maybe instead of it functioning this way 100% of the time. I feel like when a side torso is destroyed there should be a a pretty high chance for any equipment in that arm to take a critical hit and be destroyed. Not so much because the weapon itself was hit, but because the electronics connecting it to the controls in the cockpit that ran through the side torso were just destroyed. That way the loss of a side torso can cause the weapons in the arm to lose function, but if you're lucky the weapons in that arm, or at least some of them, may remain operational.

Edited by Mole, 17 November 2017 - 08:59 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 03:16 AM, said:

No questions about it.

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

You raise an interesting point...
This could be a buff to the STD engine
If you lose an ST with the STD engine, the arm does not go, but it does with a Spheroid or Clam XL
LFE loss as well (for now)
So, only the STD changes VS the current game


Though, it doesn't help many mechs...Atlas and Mauler are ST focused, but KCrab is not (only one?)
SuperNova might forgo a cXL...or lolno



At any rate, #PGIplz engine balance

[SOL Ranger]

Adding another level of passive structure on mechs could add that effect, distinguishing between "Internal Structure" vs. "Support Structure"(alt. Framework), essentially you add another zombie style structure level that only exists as a representation of structural integrity that then support any other adjacent components in place.

It would certainly be worth investigating, it would definitely make for more meaningful aiming as well.

Essentially an example heavier mech with this system would be with these new hardened side torsos:

Side Torso

[80 Component Armour]

[60 Component Internal Structure]

[60 Component Support Structure] <- Added zombie side torso.


Where once the internal structure is destroyed the component internals cease to work, but until the remaining 60 support structure is destroyed it does not destroy the arm. Also it would give a new dimension to adjust especially assault mechs with giving them some more zombie survival power and not lose their arms so quickly when pushing unless the arms are actually aimed at.

This would have to be coupled with a significant boost to CT armour/structure as well as tunneling the CT would become more valuable, which is something we don't want.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Mole, on 17 November 2017 - 08:44 AM, said:

Well since we are just invalidating all logic and common since in that case I want to be able to ride around on a giant unicorn that farts rainbows and fires PPCs out of its horn

Me too, but MLP franchise belongs to Hasbro and PGI can not add unicorns (as well as pegasi and regular ponies) without their consent.

But you can check out this game - https://www.legendsofequestria.com/
Just be sure to select unicorn, as PPC is clearly magic and only unicorns can do magic.

[Almond Brown]

Mole, on 17 November 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

Okay now with these kinds of stipulations, this idea is starting to sound more reasonable. Another stipulation I would like to add is that maybe instead of it functioning this way 100% of the time. I feel like when a side torso is destroyed there should be a a pretty high chance for any equipment in that arm to take a critical hit and be destroyed. Not so much because the weapon itself was hit, but because the electronics connecting it to the controls in the cockpit that ran through the side torso were just destroyed. That way the loss of a side torso can cause the weapons in the arm to lose function, but if you're lucky the weapons in that arm, or at least some of them, may remain operational.

So RNG it? No thanks... To have this idea happen would require the complete overhaul of the current Hit-Box system on all 200+ chassis. One could surmise that it is way to late in the game for that. If there is a MW5 Suggestion box, hustle over to that one and see where they are on Mech chassis creation..

[Trissila]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 04:41 AM, said:

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.

Leaving arms on after ST destruction does not increase TTK. If anything, it decreases TTK because 'mechs have more weapons for longer in the match. Arms have nothing to do with the destruction of a 'mech, on the receiving end.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Mcgral18, on 17 November 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

SuperNova might forgo a cXL...or lolno

Hey, I can only fit some many DHS in with an XL & Endo

[Mole]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

Me too, but MLP franchise belongs to Hasbro and PGI can not add unicorns (as well as pegasi and regular ponies) without their consent.

But you can check out this game - https://www.legendsofequestria.com/
Just be sure to select unicorn, as PPC is clearly magic and only unicorns can do magic.

This sounds logical. Except you said logic doesn't matter. What do we do now?

[Nema Nabojiv]

Trissila, on 17 November 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Leaving arms on after ST destruction does not increase TTK. If anything, it decreases TTK because 'mechs have more weapons for longer in the match. Arms have nothing to do with the destruction of a 'mech, on the receiving end.

Yes, they have more weapons and thus they are being useful for a longer duration than they are now.
Now you kill half the mech with torso destruction. With arms separated from ST destruction you will kill 1/4th of the mech.

The only good argument against it is what Tarogato said, that everyone will start shooting CT only. This was a thing in MW4 and I dont know how do I feel about it. It needs long testing on PTS and pgi cannot in into PTS testing unfortunately.

[Angel of Annihilation]

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. Magically not loosing an arm when you destroy that part where that arms is attached to sounds not reasonable.

I have to agree with this. Sure, technically destroying the torso section, at least beyond functioning wouldn't necessarily mean you would get your arm blow off, however, we have to look at the fact that the torso would be "Beyond Functioning". Logically this would mean that all control structures in the torso would also be beyond functioning which would be control structure for the arm actuators and weapons, including likely any power coupling going to the weapons from the reactor core.

So while you might not get your arm blown off, it would still effectively be dead and unusable.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 17 November 2017 - 09:46 AM.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Viktor Drake, on 17 November 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

I have to agree with this. Sure, technically destroying the torso section, at least beyond functioning wouldn't necessarily mean you would get your arm blow off, however, we have to look at the fact that the torso would be "Beyond Functioning". Logically this would mean that all control structures in the torso would also be beyond functioning which would be control structure for the arm actuators and weapons, including likely any power coupling going to the weapons from the reactor core.

And then if we apply the same logic to leg destruction, we'll be back in good old MW2 days - the leg fall off and you become a turret.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

And then if we apply the same logic to leg destruction, we'll be back in good old MW2 days - the leg fall off and you become a turret.

Though it can be argued that using a loosely attached metal frame as a crutch, vs having fully functioning weapons hanging by a thread, are not really the same thing.

If you severed some muscles/tendons/nerves from a leg, one could potentially still hobble on it.

If you severed some muscles/tendons/nerves from an arm, one could probably swing it from the shoulder, but they couldn't pick something up with their hand.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 November 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Though it can be argued that using a loosely attached metal frame as a crutch, vs having fully functioning weapons hanging by a thread, are not really the same thing.

So what is more likely to fall off - the leg which is an articulated limb on some kind of joint, or a part of the torso which is structurally the same frame as, well, torso?

[Darrious Quinn]

New Totally Real and Very Serious Proposal:
1- Head destruction should never kill mech as I can easily hide in the CT as a secondary con
2- Destruction of both legs shouldn't destroy the mech since its perfect fine above the waist! JJ equipped mechs should be allowed to bunny hop around. mechs without JJs can just sit and spin.
3- CT destruction should only mean better cooling for mechs due to improved ventilation. Its still being held together by the side torsos
4- Finally, in the event that ALL three torso's and legs were destroyed... the head should be allowed to separate and act as a spotting/observation craft.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Nema Nabojiv, on 17 November 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

So what is more likely to fall off - the leg which is an articulated limb on some kind of joint, or a part of the torso which is structurally the same frame as, well, torso?

The torso doesn't need to fall off, neither does the arm. The arm needs to somehow function with nothing to really attach it or anything housed in it to the centre torso. The leg just needs to not fall off.