Jump to content

If a MadCat was made the shoulder missile launchers would be part of the


153 replies to this topic

Poll: When the MadCat (Timberwolf) arrives (501 member(s) have cast votes)

The shoulder LRM launcher on the MadCat are part of the

  1. Torso (as per TT rules) (237 votes [47.40%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.40%

  2. Part of the Arms (armor split from arms) (12 votes [2.40%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.40%

  3. Combination of Arms / Torso (armor split from arms/torso) (10 votes [2.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.00%

  4. Separate hitbox (MW4 I think) (236 votes [47.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.20%

  5. Other. (5 votes [1.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.00%

If the LRM launchers are part of the torso; how much armour should the sides of the MadCat have

  1. Half Armor / Half Armor split between the shoulder LRM and the torso (64 votes [12.80%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.80%

  2. Full Armor for the shoulder LRM and torso. (188 votes [37.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.60%

  3. Minimum Armor for Shoulder LRM and Full Armor for torso (makes shooting off LRM launcher easier) (55 votes [11.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.00%

  4. Full Armor for Shoulder LRM (ie full side torso); Sides of the MadCat are CT only. (68 votes [13.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.60%

  5. Other. (125 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Anyone for more hit boxes than the regular 11

  1. Yes (add more hitboxes like MadCat LRM launchers) (258 votes [52.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.44%

  2. No (keep the BattleTech 11 hit boxes only) (218 votes [44.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 44.31%

  3. Reduce the number of hit boxes (less hit boxes = less lag) (2 votes [0.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.41%

  4. Other (14 votes [2.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.85%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Tygrys

    Rookie

  • 7 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 06:55 AM

View PostMason Grimm, on 10 January 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:


Normally I try not to post twice in a thread with only one respond in between but when someone throws down the Logic Gauntlet™ I just have to rear my ugly bald head!

Say we do it how you want; we make sure that the weapon pods are separate hitboxs and don't affect the torso at all because "they are disconnected". That means, due to their size, they probably get less armor than the torso right?

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

You have been hit while sneaking around a hill because someone saw your bulky pods moving in the distance. Now what are you going to do? Your reloads have just suffered an ammo explosion since the "pod" was wiped out. This damage transfers inwards, as per core rules (and even logic dictates you cannot ignore this rule).

Now what does your logic tell you?

"But but but but the clans have CASE and that protects the rest of the mech since only the section with the ammo is destroyed (to paraphrase this rule)". Great, so now you have created a weapon system with no negative drawbacks to it's use. Essentially an "I win cause I can sneak around anywhere and still have my missiles fire without worrying about taking any damage rendering me combat ineffective" button.

It is what it is. This is how the mech was designed.

People will still play the machine becaue they love the look of it or they want to be Aiden Pryde or whatever their reasons are. The mech is still effective when used in it's proper roles.


And yet I don't think people had problems with separate armour for the pods in (bashing my head begins in 3...2...1...) MW4. You could still pretty easily destroy the pods but they weren't in the insta-gib situation like you're trying to portray in your post. I still stand by my point.

By the by that "sarcasm" was totally unnecessary Mr IThinkImBetter'CauseImAnCommunityModerator.

#22 Mason Grimm

    Com Guard / Technician

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 10 January 2012 - 07:07 AM

View PostVYCanis, on 10 January 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

if anything... there should be some cool explosion for the launcher itself, but not like an actual full blown cookoff.


Fair enough. We will say that the ammo isn't stored in the racks but is in fact stored in the main chassis of the mech, like is pictuerd here with CASE in the CT, and then is fed into the pods as needed right?

Since everyone does better with visual **** we will take a look and see what we can see. If I was not at the station I could use Photoshop to highlight the areas I am talking about. If you look at the shoulder joint what do you see? You see missiles in a belt fed loading system going from a CASE storage system in the CT, through the LT (which doesn't have CASE I might add) and in to the pod.

If you lose the pod (and there is a very very slim chance that missiles inside the pod and shoulder would not explode) all of a sudden you have a giant gaping hole into the left/right torso which now make those essentially accidents waiting to happen. Why do I say "accident waiting to happen"? Well remember, CASE doesn't prevent explosions it just directs where the blast goes. Even with CASE inside the CT this mech would still be very very dead in the water. Sure it may protect the reactor from going becoming a giant LED light from orbit, or it might protect the missiles stored in the CT from killing the pilot (by directing the explosion out the back of the mech) but essentially this mech is now messed up beyond belief.

At best (no explosion) you would have LRMs spilling out on to the ground until there were no more left in the belt. This wouldn't affect the rounds already loaded in the other launcher but might affect those in the storage system if those spill out.

At worst (goodnight Irene) you would have blown off the pod, the arm and whatever unspent missiles detonate causing a chain reaction going from the pod all the way in to the CASE system and blowing the back of the mech out. This SNAFU also includes the torso on that side since it passes through it.

What would that do (going by the picture you posted and the rules for CASE)? That would knock out, remove, explode the following.....

1x LRM-15 (in the pod)
ALL the LRM15 ammo up to the CASE system (the other launcher would be fine, assuming the mech survives this)
1x ER Large Laser (in the arm)
1x ER Medium Laser (in the arm)
1x DHS (in the arm)
1x ER Medium Laser (in the left torso)
2x Machine Guns (in the left torso)
ALL the machine gun ammo (we will assume MG ammo is CASE as well so blowing out this portion of the mech)

I'd call that pretty crispy.

VYCanis said:

And yet I don't think people had problems with separate armour for the pods in (bashing my head begins in 3...2...1...) MW4. You could still pretty easily destroy the pods but they weren't in the insta-gib situation like you're trying to portray in your post. I still stand by my point.

By the by that "sarcasm" was totally unnecessary Mr IThinkImBetter'CauseImAnCommunityModerator.


Please don't turn this in to something that it isn't. There is no sarcasm in my posts at all. I am merely discussing my thoughts on the issue just as you are discussing yours; the fact that we happen to disagree does not automatically equate to me using sarcasm to prove the validity of my points.

Edited by Niko Snow, 11 June 2013 - 01:20 PM.


#23 Xavier Truscott

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Blood Bound
  • The Blood Bound
  • 68 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 07:09 AM

View PostTygrys, on 10 January 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:


And yet I don't think people had problems with separate armour for the pods in (bashing my head begins in 3...2...1...) MW4. You could still pretty easily destroy the pods but they weren't in the insta-gib situation like you're trying to portray in your post. I still stand by my point.

By the by that "sarcasm" was totally unnecessary Mr IThinkImBetter'CauseImAnCommunityModerator.



MW4 also had a ton of ammo included with the base weight of the weapon(or 4 tons if you use ac20's)...and no crit hits, oh....my favorite part here, destroy a torso but somehow your arm is still connected? The weapon pod system in MW4 was imo ridiculous. It's one thing to have different hit boxes for weapons and such designed into a game, but for the purposes of MW/BT games, you should stick with the normal crit system.

#24 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 10 January 2012 - 08:53 AM

I would think that by now the armour/crit system being used by PGI is probably already settled, assuming that they are following BT on this. I think VY has a good point, as with his suggestions in another thread in armour. It is probably too late for any such major changes to be implimented in the present game. It's not to say that it couldn't be considered if such problems do occur in game. ALso they have nearly a year after release to consider this. The Catapult would be a good way of finding out if this is a problem. As a good member of the IS I won't shed tears over a Clan weakness :lol:

#25 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 10 January 2012 - 09:50 AM

Aegis, I suggest you read VYCanis' post under the diagram again. If PGI impliment the rules properly then it loses the arm on that side.

#26 Dihm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationPlanet Trondheim

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:18 AM

View PostNik Van Rhijn, on 10 January 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I would think that by now the armour/crit system being used by PGI is probably already settled, assuming that they are following BT on this. I think VY has a good point, as with his suggestions in another thread in armour. It is probably too late for any such major changes to be implimented in the present game. It's not to say that it couldn't be considered if such problems do occur in game. ALso they have nearly a year after release to consider this. The Catapult would be a good way of finding out if this is a problem. As a good member of the IS I won't shed tears over a Clan weakness :lol:


The LRM pods on the Catapult are considered its "arms" though. So their armor depends on the armor assigned to the Left and Right Arm. LRMs on the TW are in the Torso. Not a good comparison unfortunately.

A Warhammer MIGHT work (depending on the redesign), it's got that SRM 6 sitting up on a pod above it's torso.
Posted Image

Edit: Woops, quoted the wrong post entirely!

Edited by Dihm, 10 January 2012 - 10:20 AM.


#27 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:23 AM

View PostDihm, on 10 January 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Edit: Woops, quoted the wrong post entirely!

LOL, I got notification that you quoted me, and I'm like.... That's not me! :lol:

#28 Dihm

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,312 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationPlanet Trondheim

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:25 AM

Just trying to make sure you feel involved and appreciated Aegis.

#29 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:30 AM

Thanks for the correction Dihm. I was thinking more of seeing whether Catapults lost their arms more easily because of the apparent "ears" of the launchers.

#30 Mason Grimm

    Com Guard / Technician

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:47 AM

See? Thats what I'm talking about!!! GROUP HUG!!!!!!!

#31 Doctor Horrible

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • LocationThe Black

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:52 AM

After reading and rereading VYCanis' viewpoint and Mason Grimm's viewpoint I believe/think pods (missle or otherwise) should be a separate hitbox. There are pros and cons to both as they detailed quite well. Grimm is right that it would be a vulnerability of any mech that has external missile pods because of the hole left after a launcher is blown away or due to a potential chain reaction of exploding ammo going into the chassis(yikes!). But perhaps that hole is automatically closed by an armored door when the launcher is not actively loading(the mech engineers woulda thought of that I think)? The game designers can tweak the algorithms to strike a balance here and players would be aware of the vulnerability of such a mech (all mechs have vulnerabilities, right?). For me it comes down to how I picture the mechs and the parts they have(artwork becomes reality). If it sticks out it makes a tempting target/vulnerability that, in my small mind, logically gets blown off quite easily with minimal/no damage to the torso(except for ammo explosions).

I am aware that TT rules are the basis of the MW games and that they should trump MW implementation WRT designing this game. But, I am also of the mind that every game has room for improvement and growth. Which is why the Suggestions Forum exists, right?

#32 Xavier Truscott

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Blood Bound
  • The Blood Bound
  • 68 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 11:03 AM

View PostDoctor Horrible, on 10 January 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

After reading and rereading VYCanis' viewpoint and Mason Grimm's viewpoint I believe/think pods (missle or otherwise) should be a separate hitbox. There are pros and cons to both as they detailed quite well. Grimm is right that it would be a vulnerability of any mech that has external missile pods because of the hole left after a launcher is blown away or due to a potential chain reaction of exploding ammo going into the chassis(yikes!). But perhaps that hole is automatically closed by an armored door when the launcher is not actively loading(the mech engineers woulda thought of that I think)? The game designers can tweak the algorithms to strike a balance here and players would be aware of the vulnerability of such a mech (all mechs have vulnerabilities, right?). For me it comes down to how I picture the mechs and the parts they have(artwork becomes reality). If it sticks out it makes a tempting target/vulnerability that, in my small mind, logically gets blown off quite easily with minimal/no damage to the torso(except for ammo explosions).

I am aware that TT rules are the basis of the MW games and that they should trump MW implementation WRT designing this game. But, I am also of the mind that every game has room for improvement and growth. Which is why the Suggestions Forum exists, right?



The basic reason for sticking to TT locations would be armor allocation. In MW4 with the pods, they were seperate locations, and could be taken out individually, but the armor on them didn't come from any allocation chart in the mech lab, it just magically appeared on the pods without being accounted for in weight. You are also taking alot of the traditional crit allocations and creating basically another set of them when they are already accounted for in the design. If you want to make a fighting robot game, it's all well and good, but if you want to make a battletech game with a mechlab that makes sense, you should probably stick to the base design scheme.

#33 Doctor Horrible

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • LocationThe Black

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:04 PM

View PostXavier Truscott, on 10 January 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:



The basic reason for sticking to TT locations would be armor allocation. In MW4 with the pods, they were seperate locations, and could be taken out individually, but the armor on them didn't come from any allocation chart in the mech lab, it just magically appeared on the pods without being accounted for in weight. You are also taking alot of the traditional crit allocations and creating basically another set of them when they are already accounted for in the design. If you want to make a fighting robot game, it's all well and good, but if you want to make a battletech game with a mechlab that makes sense, you should probably stick to the base design scheme.


Agreed - I would not be in favor of giving any mech "free armor" or no weight penalty for pods of any sort (weapon, ECM, etc).
Also - The point of the topic is how peeps want the designers to implement pod usage and I gave my opinion. I give respect and credit to the designers to take our opinions and add to/modify/ignore as they see fit, knowing that my incomplete idea is something they could button up if they liked the premise. They could easily work out a good way to allocate armor and weight and crits if they decide to have pods treated differently(IMO better) than the TT rules. I understand it would be different from the original TT rules. Allot of things in this game will be different(better or worse subject to opinions). Purists of the TT game will need to mentally prepare themselves for some changes and those limited to knowing the later MW games will need to adopt to some changes too. Either way, I'm just happy they are making another game and very encouraged that they want to hear our thoughts too.

#34 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:57 PM

View PostDihm, on 10 January 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Just trying to make sure you feel involved and appreciated Aegis.

*beams proudly* I helped! :lol:

#35 Aegis Kleais

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,003 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:59 PM

View PostMason Grimm, on 10 January 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

See? Thats what I'm talking about!!! GROUP HUG!!!!!!!

I tried ALT-clicking and CTRL-clicking on the LIKE THIS button for this post to see if I could rate the comment as -1

...
..
.

But I could not! Add the feature! I command it!
...and get me a bagel....I command it!

(Hey, I never thought I'd have what it takes to command, but it's pretty easy!)

#36 UncleKulikov

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 752 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:46 PM

Each chassis should be separated into hitboxes based on it's equipment.

So the Timber Wolf would have separate hitboxes for the launchers, but the total armor would be divided between these new hitboxes and it's Side Torso hitboxes, thus keeping the total armor equal between the two models.

What the difference would mean, then, is that you can try to clip it's LRM claws by directing your fire into it's missile launchers without having the chance of shooting the missile launcher, but damaging some other component deep within the side torso.

Basically each element/module should have it's own hitbox so that you can target elements for specific destruction.

#37 Rhinehart

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • LocationFree Worlds League

Posted 10 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

View PostUncleKulikov, on 10 January 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Each chassis should be separated into hitboxes based on it's equipment.

So the Timber Wolf would have separate hitboxes for the launchers, but the total armor would be divided between these new hitboxes and it's Side Torso hitboxes, thus keeping the total armor equal between the two models.

What the difference would mean, then, is that you can try to clip it's LRM claws by directing your fire into it's missile launchers without having the chance of shooting the missile launcher, but damaging some other component deep within the side torso.

Basically each element/module should have it's own hitbox so that you can target elements for specific destruction.



This is absolutely sensible. While it may have made sense for simplicity of rules for a table top game from the 1980s that already had enough complexity built into it to use the uniform 11 hitbox, for a modern computer game/simulation this shouldn't even be a question. Each design should have it's own layout which leads into its own strengths and weaknesses. That was the one thing that MW4 did get right and even they didn't at the start. When they introduced the Madcat/Timber Wolf at the start of the series the most formidable war machine of the Clan Invasion became a dead duck. Every hit on the "beak" was a potential killing shot and other similar mechs had similar problems. Each mech design will probably need to be tweaked and examined in this fashion, not to make them invincible, but to make their vulnerabilities make sense in the context of the universe.

Edited by Rhinehart, 10 January 2012 - 04:19 PM.


#38 Ceefood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ardent
  • The Ardent
  • 116 posts
  • LocationBowral NSW Australia

Posted 10 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

View PostUncleKulikov, on 10 January 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Each chassis should be separated into hitboxes based on it's equipment.

So the Timber Wolf would have separate hitboxes for the launchers, but the total armor would be divided between these new hitboxes and it's Side Torso hitboxes, thus keeping the total armor equal between the two models.

What the difference would mean, then, is that you can try to clip it's LRM claws by directing your fire into it's missile launchers without having the chance of shooting the missile launcher, but damaging some other component deep within the side torso.

Basically each element/module should have it's own hitbox so that you can target elements for specific destruction.


this is hard to implement with equality - the more equipment the less armour essentially if I understand your post properly - any mech with more equipment get less armour because it has to divide the armour between each component when based on the TT & most MW games any equipment in a section is protected by the areas armour.

overall though the original timberwolf or whatever mech is similar they already have rules for how it is built & how everything functions - yes it my be easier to hit a TW because of the pods but they are protected & hey you take what get when you choose a mech - I am willing to accept my side torsos being hit easier because of the pods just cause I think the mech looks cool.

if the devs think this is a problem you could slightly re-envision the mech for artworks sake & reduce the height of the pods by bringing them into the torso more & they are then the height of the CT chassis height - other mechs are getting redone for artwork & the unseen will possibly have some major redoing. So long as missile racks are in a squarish shape, it has arms similar with a rounded cockpit I like most people will agree its a TW.

Besides if the mechs appearance changes with its weapon/equipment config then the pods are for its prime config - what happens if the mech is its variant A (I think) which was the warhammer loadout with clan tech basically - does it not have the shoulder located artwork pods? do they sit empty?

last thing - if this mech (TW) has pods as a separate location do other mechs get that option as well? why is it good/bad for one but not available for another eg. Atlas never had this idea but maybe it would be good/bad if it did?

Edited by Ceefood, 10 January 2012 - 04:28 PM.


#39 Kodiak Jorgensson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 930 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 13 January 2012 - 07:10 AM

voted TT rules, if timberwolf gets extra hitboxes then wouldnt that mean the mad dog gets them too? its LRM racks are much bigger and present a much more inviteing target for enemy players, although they less expossed.

#40 Adrian Pryde

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • LocationNew York State

Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:54 AM

I like the way you think UncleKulikov

When a mech is designed for classic Battletech, aesthetic differences in component sizing or positioning was completely or nearly completely disregarded for game mechanics, specifically in ease of targeting of frequency of being hit. This was easily done by simply sticking to generic mech versus mech hit tables, etc. But when you get into a real-time game where pilots have precision targeting instead of randomly generated results, this uniform targeting structure is made void. The idea of being completely in-line with pen-and-paper rules then becomes I would say, purely idealistic and needs to be set aside.

What needs to be considered for each mech is the total surface area of each traditionally targetable area on a mech. What happens with the pods in the Timber Wolf is all of a sudden the left and right torsos become a much more significant portion of it's total targetable surface area as compared to other mechs which places it at a considerable disadvantage. This is a problem that needs to be resolved, or certain battlemechs will be useless to the playerbase.

I would suggest that we not place them external to the traditional rules-table, that they are indeed parts of the left and right torsos, but the damage one could inflict to those locations is limited. Say, you could only deal 60% of torso damage through the shoulder mounts, at which point they are blown off and you have to target the remainder separately.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users