153 replies to this topic

[Vanguard319]

I can say with certainty it will be like MW4 with the launchers having individual hitboxes.



I took this pic after I suffered a massive game glitch, but I think it proves my arguement.

[Navid A1]

Vanguard319, on 14 January 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I can say with certainty it will be like MW4 with the launchers having individual hitboxes.



I took this pic after I suffered a massive game glitch, but I think it proves my arguement.

that's a pretty informative glitch.
man... why don't i have these good glitches.

[Glaive-]

Michael Kalla, on 09 January 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

As a close follower of the Battletech universe and huge fan of the TT game and RPG as well as a diehard fan of the MechWarrior franchise I have my own opinions about this matter.

First and foremost, we are all aware the 2D rules and turn-based gameplay of the TT does not directly translate into 3D action-orientated gameplay.

That said; some things may need to be adjusted to "realistic" physics and logic versus board-game rules.

I adore the fact that PGI is holding true to keeping weapon values true to TT stats, and that PGI is keeping canon. As they have had to realize the hard-way that certain weapons don't translate very well sticking to the TT values and had to undergo slight adjustments. I'm completely understanding of this.

The issue of the Mad Cat (Timber Wolf) hitboxes brings in an interesting topic to think about. I see a clash happening over "true to TT fans" and "fans of MechWarrior".
I believe that PGI should make the missile racks seperate hitboxes, yet share the same armor of the side torsos, minus some allocated criticals from the side torso to the racks to not allow "extra crit space". By doing this, it should hold true to TT rules and MechWarrior mechanics. By not allowing more critical space in the side torsos than allowed in the Mad Cat per TT rules, this still allows for individual and specific targeting of the rack's hitbox allowing for better immersion and tactics.
Keep in mind, by doing this and you should happen to destroy a Mad Cats missile rack, PGI should only count the critical spaces allotted from the side torso to the missile rack as ONLY destroyed, leaving the side torsos undamaged and intact (minus ammo explosions and damage transfer).

This is the best solution IMO.


Also, the whole "The pods are just for looks" argument that some people have been using in this topic is utterly flawed.
You could say the Hunchback's hunch is "just for looks", but it still greatly effects the survivability and gameplay of the mech.

[Stingz]

armyunit, on 22 January 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

This is the best solution IMO.


Also, the whole "The pods are just for looks" argument that some people have been using in this topic is utterly flawed.
You could say the Hunchback's hunch is "just for looks", but it still greatly effects the survivability and gameplay of the mech.

Adding:
TT uses dice rolls, not real pilots shooting giant targets. It already inherits the Catapults giant CT, we don't need giant side torsos to go alongside it also.

[Atayu]

If they add more hitboxs to the madcat they completely unbalance there game format. The only way that any mech should have more hitboxs is if it counts for 4-8 mechs worth the enemy team gets. Adding more hitboxs completely destroys game balance. People that do not understand that do not understand much i guess but we have lots of those out there.

[FerrolupisXIII]

Unfortunately on one hand i do see that the giant missile pods are going to be a problem. they're huge and because they're technically mounted in the side torso its going to make taking down the sides very easy, due to the fact we're able to pinpoint all of our firepower, unlike table top.

however, changing this mech because of it is entirely unfair to all those mechs that have come before it that have large hit boxes on certain parts of their mech. why should the Timber Wolf receive special treatment? the best i could see doing is making them part of the arm hit box so you don't loose the torso, but more than that is just being unfair.

[Eddrick]

I would normaly go with the idea of doing the "Weapon Rack" as a seperate hitbox like in MechWarrior 4. But, I think it's to late for that now. I think they should shrink the size of the launchers. Simlar to what they did with the Hunchback's torso weapon(s).

[Strum Wealh]

Vanguard319, on 14 January 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I can say with certainty it will be like MW4 with the launchers having individual hitboxes.



I took this pic after I suffered a massive game glitch, but I think it proves my argument.

Actually... no, it doesn't.

If anything, it merely demonstrates that the Devs had considered the notion at one point.

However, the implementation of the Hunchback, where the "hunches" of the various models are still integrated into the side-torsos rather than being separate pieces, could demonstrate that the Devs had abandoned the idea of "large pieces as separate hit locations" in favor of maintaining the normal BattleTech space/armor/etc allocations and hit locations.

Additionally, the Orion (with its massive LRM-15, together with the SRM-4) would have similar issues as well.

And unlike the Mad Cat, an XL-equipped Orion could be wholly disabled (with relative ease) via the destruction of said launchers and the accompanying torso section.

Likewise, an XL-equipped Hunchback could be wholly disabled (again, with relative ease) via the destruction of its cannon-"hunch" and the accompanying torso section.

The Hunchback didn't get any additional hit locations, and it seems unlikely that the Orion would.
There is zero reason why the the Mad Cat should then receive special treatment.

-----

As an aside, the Mad Cat maintained the combination of its typical geometry and the classic 11 hit locations in both MW2 and MW3, and the combination did not hamper its popularity or effectiveness.

Given that it comes with full armor and it takes the destruction of both side torsos to disable (at which point, one is better off just coring it), the Mad Cat simply doesn't need the additional hit locations.

[IceSerpent]

Strum Wealh, on 23 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

However, the implementation of the Hunchback, where the "hunches" of the various models are still integrated into the side-torsos rather than being separate pieces, could demonstrate that the Devs had abandoned the idea of "large pieces as separate hit locations" in favor of maintaining the normal BattleTech space/armor/etc allocations and hit locations.

Additionally, the Orion (with its massive LRM-15, together with the SRM-4) would have similar issues as well.

You are missing the point - it's not "large pieces as separate hit locations", it's "pieces that are perched on top of the mech as separate hit locations". I.e. missile launchers on Timber Wolf / Summoner / Hellbringer, dorsal gun on Marauder (which is unseen, so it's kinda moot), etc. Those parts can be hit from virtually any direction, so they don't quite fit into front/rear armor scheme on side torsos and can't be protected by torso twisting.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

I say make the launchers part of their corresponding side torso.

BUT!

When external armor is gone, shooting those launchers will only destroy the launcher weapon.

[Rejarial Galatan]

being that I am a Timber Wolf fan, and will be a pilot of one for Clan Wolf <canon Clan Wolf folks> I am for keeping the Timber Wolf as close to TT as possible. Period. This is all based on the HOPES this game lives long enough to see Clans as playable in the first place.

[Vanguard319]

Strum Wealh, on 23 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Actually... no, it doesn't.

If anything, it merely demonstrates that the Devs had considered the notion at one point.

However, the implementation of the Hunchback, where the "hunches" of the various models are still integrated into the side-torsos rather than being separate pieces, could demonstrate that the Devs had abandoned the idea of "large pieces as separate hit locations" in favor of maintaining the normal BattleTech space/armor/etc allocations and hit locations.

Additionally, the Orion (with its massive LRM-15, together with the SRM-4) would have similar issues as well.

And unlike the Mad Cat, an XL-equipped Orion could be wholly disabled (with relative ease) via the destruction of said launchers and the accompanying torso section.

Likewise, an XL-equipped Hunchback could be wholly disabled (again, with relative ease) via the destruction of its cannon-"hunch" and the accompanying torso section.

The Hunchback didn't get any additional hit locations, and it seems unlikely that the Orion would.
There is zero reason why the the Mad Cat should then receive special treatment.

-----

As an aside, the Mad Cat maintained the combination of its typical geometry and the classic 11 hit locations in both MW2 and MW3, and the combination did not hamper its popularity or effectiveness.

Given that it comes with full armor and it takes the destruction of both side torsos to disable (at which point, one is better off just coring it), the Mad Cat simply doesn't need the additional hit locations.

I disagree, The hunchie and Orion are both poor comparisons for a mech like the Mad Cat. Seriously, look at your own pics. The Hunchback and Orion don't count simply because thier weapons are definitivly loaded into the side torsos. The Mad Cat on the other hand has two huge box launchers mounted over it's shoulders, as Ice Serpent pointed out, they can be hit from any angle, suggesting that they are not typical side torso hit boxes. My pic shows a pair of hit locations for shoulder weapons. The reason we haven't seen any mechs using them is because there are currently NO mechs ingame that feature large over-the-shoulder launchers. (The only IS mech I can think of that would have them is the Rakshasa, and that was built to emulate the Mad Cat anyway.) Just speculation on my part, we likely won't see them until Clan mechs are introduced.

[Cryptoknight]

Mason Grimm, on 10 January 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

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.

I pulled my TRO3050 book and looked up CASE. Clan CASE takes up ZERO tons and ZERO crit slots, and can go in every location. Ergo... Every location on a Clan mech comes with it. Besides everybody puts ammo wherever it fits anyway. And nothing in the TT rules prevents you loading your foot mounted missile launcher with ammo from the head of your mech if you want.

The reason the TT Madcat didn't die was that in TT you throw 2d6 and see where you hit. Mechs with extremity mounted weapons are at exceptional risk where players can actually aim. Imagine what would happen to a Marauder's shoulder mounted cannon in this game.

I'm a Madcat lover because I expect I will never see a Marauder that vaguely resembles the Marauder I played with in TT. Since I can't have that one, I gravitate towards mechs that have similar appearances.

[Stingz]

Cryptoknight, on 24 January 2013 - 03:51 AM, said:

The reason the TT Madcat didn't die was that in TT you throw 2d6 and see where you hit. Mechs with extremity mounted weapons are at exceptional risk where players can actually aim. Imagine what would happen to a Marauder's shoulder mounted cannon in this game.

I have in MechWarrior 4, Dorsal Cannon is impossible to keep intact. A large target hittable from 360 deg is not good.

[RedDragon]

Well, seeing that the Timberwolf doesn't actually have any side torsos, I'm ok with the launchers acting as those.
After all, where do you want to hit a TW to score a hit on the L/R torso? Shoot at it from the front, you will hit the CT. Shoot at it from the sides, you will hit the launcher or the arm. It's like we already have it with the Catapult, with the exception that the TW actually does have arms to block shots from the side.

[Strum Wealh]

IceSerpent, on 23 January 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

You are missing the point - it's not "large pieces as separate hit locations", it's "pieces that are perched on top of the mech as separate hit locations". I.e. missile launchers on Timber Wolf / Summoner / Hellbringer, dorsal gun on Marauder (which is unseen, so it's kinda moot), etc. Those parts can be hit from virtually any direction, so they don't quite fit into front/rear armor scheme on side torsos and can't be protected by torso twisting.

The point is hardly missed - especially since I, myself, used a number of the the same examples almost two weeks ago, in this very thread.

Strum Wealh, on 11 January 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

Also, it's not just the Mad Cat that has this issue.

The Thor with its LRM-20 sitting on its shoulder, the Hellbringer with its Warhammer-like missile pod and searchlight, the Cauldron-Born with its own boxy launchers, the Vulture and its side profile (Should hitting the side of the central portion, forward of the missile launchers, count as hitting the center-torso or the side-torso?), the Puma and Masakari with their sizable "hoods", and a few others also have the potential to present some potentially-interesting hitbox issues/questions...

-----

Vanguard319, on 23 January 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

I disagree, The hunchie and Orion are both poor comparisons for a mech like the Mad Cat. Seriously, look at your own pics. The Hunchback and Orion don't count simply because thier weapons are definitivly loaded into the side torsos. The Mad Cat on the other hand has two huge box launchers mounted over it's shoulders, as Ice Serpent pointed out, they can be hit from any angle, suggesting that they are not typical side torso hit boxes. My pic shows a pair of hit locations for shoulder weapons. The reason we haven't seen any mechs using them is because there are currently NO mechs ingame that feature large over-the-shoulder launchers. (The only IS mech I can think of that would have them is the Rakshasa, and that was built to emulate the Mad Cat anyway.) Just speculation on my part, we likely won't see them until Clan mechs are introduced.

On those grounds, I'd say that, if anything, the Hunchback, being already in-game, is an ideal example.

Especially with regard to the -4G and -4H variants, the Hunchback's hunch is large enough (more specifically, long enough) to be seen - and hit - from the 'Mech's left side.

HBK-4G


HBK-4H


Granted, it might be rather difficult to do from certain parts of the left-rear quarter... however, if one is in its (thinly-armored) left-rear quarter while carrying any significant firepower, the Hunchback in question has much more pressing problems than its cannon-hunch.

Like the Hunchbacks' cannons, the Mad Cat's launchers are rather definitively located in the side-torsos.


Granted, some of the artwork (including that on the record sheet, above) shows them as being mounted rather high, but there is other official artwork - mainly from the CCG - that shows them being mounted lower relative to the central body.

Strum Wealh, on 13 January 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Also, an alternative is to wrap the launchers around the upper corners of the boxy portion of the main body, as was done in the artwork for the old BattleTech Collectable Card Game ("CCG").


As another alternative, the launchers could remain distinctly boxy while also be lowered relative to the main body, as was also shown in the CCG.

And, again, the Hunchback's hunch is still part of the torso, as it should be and in spite of the disadvantages it brings to the 'Mech.

Why should the Mad Cat (or Thor, or Loki, or Cauldron-Born, or Vulture, and so on) be treated differently? Why should they - already being faster, more heavily-armored, more heavily-armed, and longer-ranged than most of their IS equivalents - receive the additional advantages and flaw/weakness-mitigation granted by breaking it up into a greater number of distinct hit locations?

My answer is: they shouldn't - they should be implemented with the same 8 equipment sections and 11 armor sections as every other 'Mech, and it's up to the pilot/player as to whether or not the 'Mech in question is effective on the field... in spite of (or, occasionally, because of) whatever quirks the 'Mech itself may have.

[SmilingElf]

Someone touched on this earlier in the thread, but I can't find it to quote: What about XL engines?

While the missile racks are listed as part of the side torso in TT, and I agree with concerns about adding exception cases, new hitboxes, or other lateral solutions, there is no way there is any part of the engine in those things, from both logical and visual perspectives. If I'm looking at this correctly, there are two, mutually exclusive, trains of thought.

1) Much like Hunchback and Awesome pilots are learning, don't use XL engines. Your side torso(s) are extremely vulnerable, and you're just making yourself a disproportionately easier kill.

2) If I'm not mistaken ALL clan mechs came with the superior tech, INCLUDING XL engines. If this is the case, either, this particular issue needs to be somehow accounted for, OR (and what I think will be more likely to happen) is that pilots of this mech will simply ignore cannon to account for survivability issues (and then likely rant/complain/etc.)

While having to 'dumb down' the flagship mech for a faction that was known for its tech strikes me as odd, it would become just one more item on the list of things that have taken a sharp left from cannon.

Edited by SmilingElf, 24 January 2013 - 03:33 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Note for the people concerned about XL engines in this sucker:

CLAN XL ENGINES REQUIRE TWO BLOWN SIDES TO KILL.

That is to say, they can survive the loss of a single side torso. They take up fewer critical spaces then IS XL engines, and all engines need to take three crits before destruction. In a Clan XL engine, each side torso has less then three critical spaces taken up. Ergo, you need to blow off both side torsos to kill a Clan XL engine.

As someone stated earlier, it would honestly just be easier to just core the Clan mech then burn out both side torsos.

Also, as an observation I made looking at the design again, and as was mentioned a couple posts above me by RedDragon, the 'wolf does not actually have much of a side torso outside of the missile pods themselves. In truth, all you can actually shoot at ARE the pods if you wanted to hit the side torsos! Given the combination of Clan XL engines and the lack of any kind of significant side torso other then in the pods, I think this concern might be being blown a bit out of proportion.

And, of course, the easy extra armor solution comes in the form of missile bay doors. A simple, easy to implement solution is far and away a better option for the developers then creating new hit boxes and special case by case rules for the mech.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 24 January 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[SmilingElf]

Honestly, I suspect this discussion is largely irrelevant until we find out how PGI is planning to handle clan tech. They have already taken the stance that they do not want any piece of tech to simply outclass another. (This came up during the DHS blow up.) How they are going to handle clan tech, which is, by definition / canon, simply superior, remains to be seen. And without that bit of insight, speculating and debating on how things dependent on that tech could or should function seems... kinda thin.

[Pariah Devalis]

I think you may have inadvertently taken what they said about the heat sinks out of context. In the context, they said they would not make DHS 2.0 since it would completely invalidate the option of SHS. As in, there would never be a reason to ever not upgrade them to doubles. Basically, when given the option of one item you can use verses another, they do not want something clearly superior in all cases.

If Clan machines will be limited to Clan factions, or else auto-grouped with Clan only teams and forced to fight at a disadvantage as far as team sizes are concerned, then you can clearly keep superior tech since either, a. you have no choice, it is either a Clan mech or a Clan mech without any option for an IS mech, or b. Superior tech is counterbalanced by inferior numbers. I also recall an early interview, though I do not recall which exactly, where they stated they wanted to do the Clan tech justice. As in, clearly superior tech. If the tech is to be appropriately superior, the balance checks must be applied externally somehow.

Unfortunately, it is too soon and we have too little information to figure out how they plan to externally balance the Clan technological advantage in a match by match basis.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 24 January 2013 - 08:37 PM.