558 replies to this topic

[Trogusaur]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Good to be back on this topic. Aside from League experience and being familiar with BattleTech for nearly 20 years, there's a lot of reasons legging is entirely fine as it has been - they are harder to hit targets, they are heavily armored (if you're smart) and their profile on most 'mechs is more difficult to strike than a torso profile. They can also be shielded while you are returning fire and you are not likely to take engine crits to the leg, since MWO has restored criticals.

I will quote you on the most topic-relevant points from here on. I meant to include the others as a means to relate to the issues I have seen with MW4, along with other games. Aside from that, I think Loghammed already succinctly stated what I also have been trying to point out. Despite what you seem to think, legging is still fairly easy to accomplish in any MW title. Leg profile is generally only small if you are looking straight at the 'mech. As soon as it turns (this is for reverse jointed especially), not only are both legs in the same targeting space, but the sides have far more definition, and thus, are much more obvious targets. I have already posted 5+ pictures to support what I have already stated.

Quote

Legging has always existed as it has been, despite different mechanic changes, across the entire MechWarrior franchise while you are insisting it is entirely irreparably broken. I think the burden of proof is on the anti-legging crowd in this case.

I am not saying it is irreparably broken, it has just not been implemented correctly as a means for a fair game. The way I see it, you shoot a foot, you're stubbed. Shoot a shin, you're crutched. Shoot an actuator, you are seriously limping. But unless you get a 50 ton slug to remove the leg cleanly, nothing is going to sweep that leg out from between both the 'mech and the ground, nor should losing a leg kill an otherwise fully functional 'mech. Furthermore, it is common sense that if you are going to argue a point, you provide evidence when necessary. You have done no such thing, and everything you have said to this point is purely subjective and speculative. Unless you have something to support your claim, it cannot be stated as fact.

Quote

That said.. what exactly does this group want anyway? Legs are going to exist on a 'mech no matter what, do you seriously want to punish people for shooting them? What exactly is the end goal of the anti-legging crowd? Invincible legs? Quadrupled armor? A server side autokick? What is the endgame, here?

Contrary to popular belief, the anti-legging crowd is not some hooded society club that burns small animals in hatred for the leggers. I do not want to punish legging. I do not want players to change their tactics based on somebody else's whining, people will always do what they have to to win. Rather, I want the game itself to accurately balance a mechanic that has been an issue for a very long time. I cannot take credit for this, but someone else on this thread suggested proportioning the legs into separate hitboxes, like the torsos. It could be something as simple as foot, shin, thigh, or even just upper/lower leg, but it would assure that 2HKing (or just simply downing) a 'mech due to leg destruction is much harder to accomplish. Read Loghammed's above post, and he also seems to have found a good solution. Like he said, there can be a compromise.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 17 April 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Legging can be accomplished by someone that's a good shot but with projectile weapons that have even the slightest travel speed or energy weapons that burn over time - i.e. pretty much all weapons that aren't instant hit scan, it's unavoidable that large chunks of your firepower will miss the leg as it is moving, no matter how good of a shot you are. If you're aiming for a torso, you have a far, far greater chance of impacting the torso with every weapon you have.

So while you're spending time attempting to disable/slow a target firing at the leg and equally skilled gunner on the other team will have completely destroyed you. That's the long and short of it. You're spending time hitting a target that's far more difficult to impact no matter how good of a shot you are (say, with a beam over time weapon against a moving leg, it's outright impossible to even track the leg 100% of the time to get a full discharge into it just due to tracking speeds) for the purposes of disabling/gimping an enemy while they outright kill you.

Any talk about how easy it is to leg is purely anecdotal bullcrap, honesty - in particular coming from people who don't have much experience in it because of their dislike for the mechanic. The mere fact the legs generally have a smaller profile then any torso segment and are steadily moving (combined with turning, in an unpredictable fashion) are reasons that is objectively harder to hit the legs than a torso not based on some claim to how good of a shot you are.

I've legged plenty of targets and it is not easy. Often times with an entire team shooting at a fast medium's legs, it will take so long that someone's shot will nail a torso and we'll switch back to that.

Generally as I said, I'll only leg someone if they're moving very slowly (in particular if they're in a 'mech with huge legs like the Atlas) or far more often, if they've taken heavy leg damage - this typically happens if someone's firing a pair of Gauss at a downward angle and misses a torso or such and nails the leg, crippling it. I'll also admit if there's a powerful hit scan "all damage up front" weapon, then legging is drastically easier - but hopefully we won't have those in favor of burn-over-time lasers. Not that it'd be worth it anyway - in that case, again, I'd rather spend my heat and energy destroying the enemy, not gimping the enemy anyday. (MechWarrior 3 is the only game you can make a huge case for legging being totally broken in as that actually blew up the 'mech.)

In the end if you're legging you are just slowing someone down while the guy you are legging can try to kill you in the exact same amount of time and succeed. Even if you were both golden Gods of aim that never miss a shot, odds are the legged guy will slice open your CT and go to town long, long before you can eliminate both legs.

Taelon Zero, on 14 April 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Can you think of a better way to beat a 100ton mech with only a 35ton?

To be honest, rear torso shots or long range harassment (speed + size + range makes for a nightmarish light.)

The only drivable vehicle in any game recently that makes legging a priority for me is an LBX loaded tank in Living Legends - and then only in the Solaris Arena because group fire would destroy it and mostly because I crash it into a 'mechs foot below their visual arc and just lay into them, while they can't return fire. It has nothing at all to do with the leg armor being better and more abusing an assault's inability to aim at it's feet..

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 April 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Colddawg]

legging should be abolished between clan warriors.

It is not a true test of combat to kill a 'Mech by legging it.

But yes, the salvage in MW3 was great from legging.

Also, this is not MW3.

[Grinner]

Victor, I'd really like to see a response from you to my post on the bottom of page 16. We had a bit of dialogue going but the topic has wandered and gotten off track, I think. I'd like to see it return to an intelligent discourse, and I'd like to hear your response to my thoughts.

Edited by Grinner, 17 April 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[Motionless]

Logahmmed, on 16 April 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Okay, some things are annoying me:

-- "This is war" -- it's also a video game. While yes, we enjoy war "simulators," it's still a video game, and video games are supposed to be fun. Legging, when the game allows for it to be utilized so easily, ruins the fun. Not acknowledging that will result in casual gamers fleeing, reduced revenue for MW:O, and a lower likelihood of our favorite game having an extended product cycle.You trying to be badass does not help anything but your own ego. We're trying to keep this series alive and thriving, not just alive for the hardcore.

Why is legging only for 'hardcore?' I mean, even casuals will be able to understand legging, it's not a difficult concept.

Quote

-- Legging is GOING to happen. In MW3, it COULD BE a cheap tactic, absolutely, the equivalent of Zerg rushing in Starcraft. Yes, you can stop it, yes, you can do it back, but at that point, is anyone really having fun or are they fighting just to shove it in someone's face?

MW3 is actually a good example - for many people it was their first Mechwarrior game, or at least their first online one, and they very easily and quickly understood the use of legging, as well as injected the technique into their own play.

The only reason I think you could characterize legging as 'hardcore' is because in a game like MW3 it made the game fast. And when it comes to games fast means hardcore and slow means casual, more or less. A noob can't get owned any more than an insta-gib hitscan game -- he'll never be alive for more than a few seconds and doesn't have the accuracy to take other people out during those fleeting moments of life he has, even though he would only need to land a single hit to kill someone. And in a slow game he can toss many shots out wildly and maybe get a killing blow or at least do some damage before his death.

That being said, I had a hell of a lot of fun in MW3, and I got legged and legged back constantly. I didn't view it as someone shoving it in my face because that's a silly attitude.

Ultimately, if you want to help slow down the game for casuals, instead of taking out the most effective tactics, you could just give an across the board nerf to all weapon system's damage, or buff armor or something. I'm not sure it's needed though, some of the most successful games in online gaming are very unforgiving and fast paced (Counterstrike and Counterstrike: Source being amazing examples of both a fast and unforgiving game as well as being a couple of the most played games in the world - with many casuals and 'hardcore' players.)

Edited by Motionless, 17 April 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Havoc2]

I still don't understand where all this whining from legging is coming from.

I played MW2, MW2:Mercs, MW3, MW3:Pirate's Moon, MW4 Veng/BK and MW4:Mercs online and the worst I remember the legging being was in MW2:Mercs.

People who died to legging in MW3/MW4 died because they stripped off leg armor in order to improve weapons.
I remember matches in MW3 where I would consistently 2 shot certain people because their configs had all the armor stripped from their legs. You want to not get legged? Put armor there.

Complaining because you got legged, when you removed the armor from those legs makes as much sense as complaining that someone shot you in the back because you were walking backwards into the battle.

[Thomas Oreland]

Chromehounds didn't die because of it's combat.

[ElwoodBlues]

I think terrain has always been the missing element in Mechwarrior games. Due to system limitations, most of the time the legs were exposed, juicy targets. Housing, trees, and regular 1-2 story city buildings would make leg targeting difficult. The concept of having all weapons hit one location, every time, causes problems also. An open field battle is always going to allow legs to be back on the menu, but torso's should be a go-to target for reliably hitting.

I think there should be a certain amount of spread if you are running, turning, etc. The more weapons fired, the greater the spread. Don't want the spread? Don't move and be a turret. Mechwarrior has never properly taken into account that people can be good enough at these games to break game balance. This really killed light mech play.

[Victor Morson]

Grinner, on 12 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

As I said in my post though, I don't really have an issue with targeting the legs, I absolutely agree that it's a viable tactic to slow or incapacitate an enemy. My concern is what happens to a 'mech that has been legged in this way. Again, in the table top it is still able to prop itself up provided it has both arms and return fire up until it loses an arm, or even to attempt to stand though the roll is rather difficult. In short, legging a 'mech should not instantly remove it from the battlefield or make it a non-threat, only hinder it greatly.

I pretty much agree with this, either via prop mechanic or limp mechanic (I've always favored the limp mechanic - I think it's more fun for everyone while still being entirely viable). Legging shouldn't remove the 'mech from the fight entirely and I've never thought it should.

You might be underestimating legged 'mechs in MWLL though - depending on how they fall (a big factor), they can be ludicrously useful. In one-life battles I've seen legged 'mechs kill 2-3 enemies away that wandered into their arc while discounting them as a threat. It can be a nasty surprise.

Grinner, on 12 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Also, the pin point, instantaneous damage made targeting and destruction of legs, or any location, incredibly easy. Mechwarrior 4 chose to circumvent this by inflating armor values so that repeated hits could be shrugged off what would have cored through mechs in the table top game. MWO will likely inflate the armor values somewhat, but they seem to be coming closer to the table top game's randomness in that multiple factors will likely reduce the amount of direct damage any one location takes at any one time.

Again, we still don't know how leg destruction will be handled, and I eagerly await seeing how they adress this.

Why I'm hoping that lasers will have a burn over time mechanic similar to LL in MWO, because it makes them far harder to damage a single area and almost impossible to discharge entirely into the leg. I will admit MW4 probably allowed for the easiest leg attacks, but at the same time, I do not think they were the best strategy the vast majority of the time. I almost never would target a leg in that game, preferring to hammer a side torso until they exploded - with exceptions, of course.

Grinner, on 12 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Again, I don't really disagree with jumping from cover to cover, I much prefer mobile jumping mechs sniping from range as opposed to turret-like assault mechs or the simple bruisers. But you're missing the key point, that jumping from cover to cover also imposes penalties on the attacker as well as the defender. It is still an entirely viable tactic, and one I employ often, but I have to contend with that +3 to the target number from using jumping movement. There is a corresponding penalty to my attacks even as my movement and use of cover makes it harder for the enemy to target me.

My contention is that previous 'mech games, MW4 and MW:LL included, have not really reflected this penalty to the attacker. Both have overly floaty jump mechanics that have little to no effect on the ability of the attacker to accurately hit his target. Combined again with instant damage, instant travel, high damage weapons that hit exactly where I aim every time, that makes jumping from cover to cover a tremendous advantage to the attacker with little to no draw back aside from added heat, which is of little concern if you can cool down and recycle your weapons behind a hill.

I think you have something closer to MPBT3025's jump jets in mind, which is actually fine by me - they were a blast to use. It's a shame that MPBT3025 came out when Youtube was in an infancy (or was it even a site yet?) because I can't even find video of them in action to really illustrate the point.

That said, I think MW4's jump jets had the reverse issue from table top - it's actually kind of interesting that way. I think jumping there gave you a -3 to /get hit/ if you had to convert it; your "hang time" was a death sentence. The more time required to aim the more hang time you'd suffer.

The same thing is true of MWLL to a degree but where I think they really succeeded, though, was in creating vast amounts of waste heat - firing energy weapons while using a large number of jump jets was a shutdown waiting to happen. It'd be interesting to see shut downs in mid-jump resulting with a knockdown in MWO, since MWLL couldn't support knockdowns for technical reasons.

Now if we consider the fact MWO appears to have no coolant button (a change I REALLY REALLY like), I think the vast heat solution would be a very interesting way to handle them.

Grinner, on 12 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

All I would hope is that "poptarting" impose same penalty to the attacker as it does in the table top, i.e. make the screen shake and rattle, the cross hairs jiggle a little bit to reflect all that tonnage rocketing through the sky. I want to know that when I jump from cover and lay the hurt on someone on the other side of a ridge, it is because I'm a good pilot, not because the game mechanics make it absolutely beneficial for no draw back.

It really is a hard line to walk. MPBT3025's jump jets were so powerful and awesome feeling, yet, you could never even remotely hope to intentionally land a DFA or even pin point a landing to the exact spot you wanted. I think they're a great place to start, though. I wish there was some way to find video of them in action for this discussion, because they were radically different than any previous MW game.

Really, I have no problem with pop tarting as a mechanic but I'm totally supportive of reworking jump jets to make them feel less "glidey" is the size of it. I think we can both agree that they've never felt right in the majority of MechWarrior games. I won't even go into MW2's, which were hilariously insane (allowing for on-a-dime instant turns without even losing speed - I almost never took more than a single jump jet entirely for the purpose of doing 180 spins. Actual jumping was a rarity compared.)

That said, at the risk of getting even further off topic, I would like the maneuverability aspect (where the 'mech facing isn't linked to the jump jet movement) represented in some capacity. It'd be neat if jump jets allowed you to move in any direction independent of facing, while providing the same kind of rock/thrust of MPBT jump jets, allowing pinpoint landings but also not gliding.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 April 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[Leetskeet]

One of the few things I like about MWLL are the jumpjets. They feel right. Except on the Catapult, the first half of your fuel doesn't even get you off the ground, I don't know if it's intentional or a bug but it's annoying.

[Insidious Johnson]

Was playing on a NHUA MW4 server y'day. Some dude running pulses and uac5's knocks my shots off, I'm lucky to hit him at all. One alpha connected with a leg. He then gets thermonuclear pissed, screams " I can leg too" then procedes to leg me the rest of the game, I say nothing. It reminded me of one of Hitler's greatest blunders. Alder Tag and after, he almost has the RAF flying nothing but matchsticks. One night an He111 off course dumps its load and runs for home. It hit London. The next night, the RAF bombs Berlin. Hitler is so upset that he calls off hitting the RAF and bombs civilians in London, giving the RAF time to rebuild. The invasion of Britain is called off by the fall. The brief window for victory forever closed afterwards for Germany. Let them shoot at my legs. It is easier to core the emotionally distracted dum basses. Even more valuable, all the asshats identify themselves.

[Victor Morson]

Colddawg, on 17 April 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

legging should be abolished between clan warriors.

It is not a true test of combat to kill a 'Mech by legging it.

The Clans always have cared more about salvaging and preserving equipment than anything, that's the entire reason for their honor/dualing rituals, to maximize salvage. This whole "Clan honooooor" thing always gets brought up when legging does but the irony is that the Clans would probably reward a pilot who successfully legs all his enemies as one of the best pilots they've ever had: Maximum equipment and maximum bondsmen.

[Grinner]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Victor. I appreciate the insight. To me it sounds like our opinions don't differ all that much re: game mechanics reflecting the table top rules. I got into Battletech in a rather circuitous way, first reading the books as a fan of sci-fi, then playing the computer games, starting with MW3 and later MW4, and finally finding a group that plays the table top game. Though I came by the table top rules last, I play them regularly and have become a bit of a grognard, with a deep and abiding love for the lore and the history of the universe.

As such, while I loved the computer games I always felt they fell short of representing the material, usually because of limitations of the technology at the time. It really seems like the team behind this game comes from the same place as us fans though, and they are really pushing for fidelity and remaining true to the lore. As much as I enjoy the MW:LL, it's great to see a proper sequel to a game franchise I've loved for over a decade.

Also, I must ask, you wouldn't happen to be the same Victor Morson who led the FWL in the NBT-IV league, would you? If so, we might have crossed swords at one point.

[RJ788]

I think it's fine as long as they allow ample armor to the lower limbs. all's fair in love and war

[Rejarial Galatan]

Colddawg, on 17 April 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

legging should be abolished between clan warriors.

It is not a true test of combat to kill a 'Mech by legging it.

But yes, the salvage in MW3 was great from legging.

Also, this is not MW3.

Ok. Lets make this clear. Even a clanner < i, if given half a chance will fight for clan wolf from the moment its an option till the game is switched off by PGI> like myself will take ANY shot if it is a tactical advantage to me. If your little Firemoth is racing at me and I can get a clean shot at your legs and rip your mobility out from under you? You can bet your life I WILL do it. It would be like telling a fighter pilot, ok you can kill your enemy, but MUST do so from a head on angle only. No, you can bet that pilot will take ANY advantage he/she can get on the enemy and take them down as fast as possible. While I grant that the enemy may obliterate you before you leg them, it is useful for the assault/heavy mechs when that faster lil gnat of a scouts coming in. As for your claim its not a true test of skill, yes, actually it is. Smaller hitbox and constantly moving. taking a limb any limb leg or arm IS a sign of skill. Besides, as they say: anything that can be done, WILL be done. If it can have armor, IT WILL GET SHOT AT. end of story

[Steamroller Stig]

It's not an issue.

- legs can have almost as much armor as the CT
- It's harder to hit a specific leg that's constantly moving.
- It just demobilizes the mech whereas CT shots kill it
- legs don't shoot back arms do

[Rejarial Galatan]

Just to point something else out here: me, my tactic on the previous MW games was this: take a leg out to make it slower. move onto the CT and kill it now that its slower and easier to hit. rinse repeat

[Zylo]

Rejarial Galatan, on 18 April 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Just to point something else out here: me, my tactic on the previous MW games was this: take a leg out to make it slower. move onto the CT and kill it now that its slower and easier to hit. rinse repeat

This was popular back in MW2 because legging removed the enemy's "lag shield" which was the distance you had to fire in front of a moving mech in order to hit. I did the same thing because the majority of the time the enemy was trying to do it to me. It was often a race to disable the lag shield by taking off a leg. While I did use the TWolf often I also liked the Warhammer IIC since it was a bit harder to leg although the arms didn't last as long since they were easy to hit.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I never played MW2 in multi player. But my point is still the same. I use heavy and assault mechs. That blasted Gnat of a Firemoth is just too bloody fast for me to turn with when its circling me. My only option before even its relative minimal fire power compared to my heavy/assault mech turns me to scrap is to rip a leg out from under it, back off a distance and then shred it.

[Victor Morson]

Grinner, on 17 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Victor. I appreciate the insight. To me it sounds like our opinions don't differ all that much re: game mechanics reflecting the table top rules. I got into Battletech in a rather circuitous way, first reading the books as a fan of sci-fi, then playing the computer games, starting with MW3 and later MW4, and finally finding a group that plays the table top game. Though I came by the table top rules last, I play them regularly and have become a bit of a grognard, with a deep and abiding love for the lore and the history of the universe.

I started with Cresent Hawks Inception way back on the Commodore 64. I was shocked a year or so later to learn there was a universe outside of that one game, with novels, a table top game and 'mechs heavier than 50 tons. If you ever played that game first, you'd think a Chameleon was like unto a God (you had to exploit like mad to get one!), so an Atlas utterly blew my mind.

Shortly after I stumbled on a bundle pack that included not only CSI, but it's sequel and MechWarrior 1 (holy crap, a first person mech game? Like Wolfenstein?!) and after that, quickly got into the extended universe and was one of the many people eagerly awaiting MechWarrior 2 - which many people may have forgotten quickly got a reputation on par with DNF for being total vaporware.. to the point after I hadn't heard anything for six months I actually called Activision to confirm it was still in development, heh.

I actually think I was really lucky to get into BattleTech this way. As CSI was an RPG and CSR was a very story heavy strategy game, I got an introduction to the setting, factions, timeline, technology and all of that first and foremost, with 'mechs being secondary. In fact in CSI you start out as just a guy without even a 'mech beyond some training scenarios so it really drove home the whole feel of BattleTech to me in a way I think would have been different if I hit MechWarrior first. Even if this approach did give me an skewed love for Locusts and Commandos at first.

Grinner, on 17 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

As such, while I loved the computer games I always felt they fell short of representing the material, usually because of limitations of the technology at the time. It really seems like the team behind this game comes from the same place as us fans though, and they are really pushing for fidelity and remaining true to the lore. As much as I enjoy the MW:LL, it's great to see a proper sequel to a game franchise I've loved for over a decade.

I think the Crescent Hawk series did a good job representing the overall setting and such, and MechWarrior 1 also really got the concept of equipment shortages and such down. Really I don't think the games started overly simplifying things until MW3/4, when the story aspects either got stripped way down or vastly over simplified; one could argue that was a side effect of the same happening in the novels and fluff at that time (I really hate how the civil war was handled), so they had to rely way more on game play and the appeal of big robots shooting at each other to appreciate.

Whereas I had the luxury of getting into the game playing some guy who didn't even own a big robot until a quarter way through the game. It definitely made for a very different early view of the game in general. Man, I'm getting off topic here, heh

Grinner, on 17 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Also, I must ask, you wouldn't happen to be the same Victor Morson who led the FWL in the NBT-IV league, would you? If so, we might have crossed swords at one point.

Yep, that'd be me; one and the same. We ran Free Worlds League during NBT-IV, forming the Blazing Aces in NBT:M. Not to be confused with the second Blazing Aces that took over at the very end of Mercs and into HC. They had some really good players in their group too, just I unfortunately wasn't apart of that team at the time. Some of them have got ahold of us though and will be joining us in MWO, which we're looking forward to!

Which unit were you apart of?

Edited by Victor Morson, 18 April 2012 - 11:34 PM.