558 replies to this topic

[Opus]

http://youtu.be/xmFXEcI_AA4

Just saying, it is Ok to disagree, but save it for the battlefield. Then we can put these ideas to the test...

WHICH MEANS; WE WANT BETA , hint hint hint

[Belisarius1]

lol oh man, Victor, we all have our battles, don't we? I'll leave this one to you.

I will say that I don't know if you've touched on one of the main weaknesses of legs: they can, generally, be shot from any side of a 'mech. The left torso can be shielded by fading, but my left leg is always visible even if you're on my right hand side. It's a moving target that's difficult to shoot, but it's also almost always exposed.

I didn't use this much myself because I always found my 300+ ping made leg shots on running targets too inconsistent. That may have just been because I was never very good at lag shooting, but even much better and less laggy pilots than I rarely shot for legs unless they were damaged already.

Edited by Belisarius†, 12 April 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Belisarius†, on 12 April 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

lol oh man, Victor, we all have our battles, don't we? I'll leave this one to you.

I will say that I don't know if you've touched on one of the main weaknesses of legs: they can, generally, be shot from any side of a 'mech. The left torso can be shielded by fading, but my left leg is always visible even if you're on my right hand side. It's a moving target that's difficult to shoot, but it's also almost always exposed.

I didn't use this much myself because I always found my 300+ ping made leg shots on running targets too inconsistent. That may have just been because I was never very good at lag shooting, but even much better and less laggy pilots than I rarely shot for legs unless they were damaged already.

I'll admit, I'm figuring my recent experiences in Living Legends into this as well as just MW4; in particular since the penalty (knock down with no chance of getting back up) was much higher there. In general what happens is your lasers will burn over time and only scar the legs (the target leg you're trying to shoot might get 30% of the blast tops) and well over half your projectiles, missiles, etc. go flying through and hitting dirt, at least against a target that's keeping their speed up. I'd often use HGRs in that game and when you have a single shot that needs to count, you want to go for a part you can definitely hit.

Of course, my equal experience with a lot of the major anti-legging crowd is that they'd tend to "park and shoot" - and blowing off a stationary mech's leg with an HGR is actually pretty easy. I honestly didn't understand why they had such a problem with legging until I actually got them in my sights and saw them just handing me chances like that.

I think one of the last times I played on their server I blew off the arms and weapon racks from their most vocal anti-legger (thanks again to his disinterest in staying mobile) and got kicked for it. It's a shame my point wasn't clearer in there - if I, in a cheaper 'mech, could dismantle his entire 'mechs weapon systems intentionally, the actual legs weren't the problem.

EDIT: I will continue to give MW1 credit for having broken legging mechanics. All those poor AI battlemasters not knowing what to do when a Locust slams into their knees and starts firing machine guns over and over.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 April 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[soulfire]

legging became so bad in mw3 at one point that mechs ran towards each other adn you could see them all torso forward aiming at legs. Poor mechanic of the game and something I am sure the dev never thought would happen. Why good beta testing is a good thing. This is sc fi fantasy but if they were actual engineers and such of mechs and they saw that legging was a problem do you thing that the manufacturers would so something to counteract this type of attacks on their mechs."Well I heard your atlas was nice but Ive been told in the field that a jenner can with just two alpha strikes take your atlas's leg out of commision what are you doing to counteract this ????" Hopefully attacks with lasers and the like are not goign to be pin point affars unless the target and the shooter are standing dead still and even then its damage to a small spot. I agree with person said weapon damage should be to a small area while the leg itself is a very large area to hit. Trouble with mw 3 4 was considered leg as all one spot worth so many hit points lets say 20. someone htis top of the leg -10 to the whole leg another shot hits the knee -5 another hit in foot -5 legs out now. even though two part of the leg took only small amount of damage as a whole legs gone. This is an easy way for a game engin to consider damage cutting down on the info it uses. If we wanted something more umm "real' then youd have to consider each part of the leg is covered in a number of pates and each plate has a number of points of damage it can absorb before failing.( We'll skip that each plate can have its own specific armor value those in open spot more likely to be shot are thicker than those lets say inside of thigh.) I think this would be a more realistic way.The mechs moving and it gets hit by a medium laser from another mech moving that laser shot is going to cover an area of lets say 4 armor plates.This spreads the damage accross a specific area as it should be and not total health of the leg. Of coarse they cant do this in games today as the data that each computer would have to do to track weapons damage, each armor tile damage on each mech would be allot I guess. I hope they at least make legs more than just one area so that damage can be spread out.
Pop tarting if they make it more real in that 80 tons hits jump jets the whole mechs shaking moving the pilots trying his best to keep it upright and going to where he wants if he wants to try to take a shot while doing all this sure but I would think the targeting systems would be jumping all over the place with the shaking its not even worth trying.

[Archtus]

I'm sure it's been said, but I'm not about to read 17 pages for it(<---Lazy).

I plan on piloting a Raven ASAP. What does this mean for me? I'm light, and easily taken out by those guys in the Steiner Scout Mechs. What does it mean for you? I have a few weapons, that WILL be targeting your legs or weapons mounts every chance I can. Now, I DO NOT WANT "Legged=Death". I want Legged=Immobile. Sure, let's make you a perfect turret.

[MostlyHarmless]

Archtus, on 12 April 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

I'm sure it's been said, but I'm not about to read 17 pages for it(<---Lazy).

I plan on piloting a Raven ASAP. What does this mean for me? I'm light, and easily taken out by those guys in the Steiner Scout Mechs. What does it mean for you? I have a few weapons, that WILL be targeting your legs or weapons mounts every chance I can. Now, I DO NOT WANT "Legged=Death". I want Legged=Immobile. Sure, let's make you a perfect turret.

Same here, if I'm running a Jenner in our recon lance and come across my opposite number in a Steiner scout Atlas you better believe I'm circling for his legs. Its not a question of honor, its a question of making a smaller mech viable.

[Cochise]

If legging upsets you, check out World of Tanks. The mechanized armor is on treads and not legs. Problem solved.

Otherwise, let the legging begin!@!

Edited by Cochise, 12 April 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Trogusaur]

Victor Morson, on 12 April 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

Direct fire weapons, such as lasers and pulse lasers (game dependent) will utterly blow the snot out of a jump sniper. Advancing on them with Autocannon heavy brawlers ruins their day too.
In addition of jumping makes a large amount of heat (something MW4 admittedly did poorly but MWLL does very well) it's not nearly as invincible as you seem to think.

That is assuming you have both the cover and the means to reach the poptart in the first place. You have to close to 300 meters to do any damage, assuming you aren't picked apart by the rest of the team.

Quote

No, in MW4 it was pretty terrible because of the existence of LBX, not pop-tarting. LBX/10 and LBX/20 were simply way better than their UAC counterparts on almost every level in that game (for a lot of reasons, including hit boxes) so it utterly outdated the UAC. It had nothing to do with pop tarting- and that's LBX was always, always popular in MW4.

That is comparing two entirely different classes of weapons! The LBX class is essentially a 'mech shotgun, firing cluster or slug rounds, where as a UAC (especially the 2 and 5, the weapons we have been talking about all along) is similar to a semi-automatic tank cannon. That is the equivalent of comparing a shotgun to a battle rifle in a CQB match, the shotty will always win. One is meant for close quarters, while the other is a long range, repeat fire cannon. This is a very poor comparison.

Quote

"Leave weapons range" - What? And refuse to ambush? Oh, man. So many people don't understand Zellbringen. There are no rules against ambushing or surprise attacking people in Zell. Also if you think Zell will figure at all into MWO, you may be completely mad.

Finally, what does any of that have to do with the fact the Clan Large Pulse Laser is vastly, vastly overpowered in Table Top? That's not even remotely connected to what I said.

Rules
The proscriptions of zellbrigen consist of the following rules:

• Each warrior will issue a challenge to a different enemy. If one side outnumbers the other, then the extra warriors on that side will stand aside until one of their comrades falls in battle. A warrior can challenge more than one unit at a time.^[4]
  
• A warrior has right to refuse challenges from Inner Sphere units, especially if underhanded ploys are suspected.^[4]
  
• A warrior has the right to refuse a challenge from an unit of differing weight class if other unengaged units are available.^[4]
  
• No artillery or other Area-Effect Weapons shall be employed by either side.^[4]
  
• Intentionally moving out of the line of sight of the opponent is prohibited.^[4]
  
• Systems that requires multiple units to operate, like C3 and TAG, are forbidden.^[4]
  
• Moving out of weapon range is prohibited.^[4]
  
• Failure to fire a weapon when possible is prohibited.^[4]

Erinyes

Description
The Erinyes (and their pilots) did perform well during the Hellion's Fury campaign. Using the Erinyes as an ambush hunter, the Jade Falcon forces on several worlds seriously damaged Clan Ice Hellion forces. (It's important to note that the ambushes only occurred after the Hellions broke zellbrigen. In the stand up fights the Jade Falcons prefer, the Erinyes is little more than a target. Given that the Falcons have been known to withhold zellbrigen when fighting Inner Sphere forces, this use of the Erinyes should not be ignored.)

Posted straight from sarna itself.
Although not explicitly stated in Clan zellbrigen, it is commonly frowned upon to ambush an underhanded opponent. Read up on your Battletech books, and I guarantee 90% of all mentioned ambushes result as grounds for the assaulted party to withhold zell.

Quote

I hate to tell you but a 4 CERPPC Gladiator is going to blow the crap out of a half dozen AC/2 wielding 'mechs because, well, those are good guns on a good 'mech. I'm really, really not sure what this has to do with legging, at all. Are we even on topic anymore?

Also, the LPS example was something you trumped up, completely irrelevant to what I was initially citing. Congratulations, you contradicted yourself.

I agree on both points, a 4CERPPC Gladiator will probably beat another with UAC2's, mostly because of damage spread on the UACs, and the armor overhaul on such a 'mech. I will conduct a sim on MW4 between bots and give a score summary of the results. (played out on map MekBowl, notorious for the wide open spaces). This argument did go off-topic, and I apologize to the OP for that. However, we are still discussing commonly used tactics, a category that both jump sniping and legging fall into.

Quote

There's a small group of people that thing the game should have no legging and no pop tarting, but also terrible 'mech designs should be viable and terrible guns should have a place. The problem is, they are terrible for a reason. You are never, ever going to make a config designed to be bad good, because it's bad.

In this one rant you've basically claimed a light weight UAC/5 wileding 'mech should be able to tear apart a 95 tonner with 4 ER PPCs, and not only that, the reason it supposedly can't do so is because the 95 tonner can jump. I think we're so far off the rails here that this conversation has jumped into the territory of 5 other threads

That is an exaggeration of my position. You are implying all terrible weapons should be placed on a chassis, when all weapons are meant to hold a degree of balance. One of my favorite puretech Battlemaster designs features a pair of UAC5's, tried and true to be able to down 'mechs heavier than itself. Even a MG boat can dominate a match if used correctly.

If you don't like the fact that we are both arguing on multiple fronts not related to this thread, call it quits here and debate over PM.

Quote

That's the problem when I reply to everything being said and so much is being said at me. I'm not coming up with new scenarios and points, just responding. Not much else I can do but ignore them.

You make it sound like poor, pitiful you was attacked and it's your duty to react to something directly pointed at you. If memory serves on Page 16, you responded to me. This isn't some hate post that you have to defend yourself in, we both have the God given right to drop this at any time.

Quote

Are you seriously trying to say UAC/5 would be superior to Gauss if not for jump snipers? Because it's not. It's not on any level, ever, anywhere, for any reason. Like I said above, in a game with no jumpers, it's traditionally a God awful weapon except in HC, where it shines against snipers. So your point is really, really off base.

Yes, yes I am. According to the stats I posted straight from MW4, a pair of UAC2's will do nearly double the damage over time than that of a Gauss. Assuming both pilots are of equal skill, the UAC pilot will at least spread more cumulative damage than the Gauss pilot. This does not take into account the fact that most 'mechs capable of carrying either weapons can carry a full complement of others as well. Add just a PPC or some lasers, and Gauss pilot is doomed. Give it jump jets, and it is king of the world. I also noticed how you seem to think that I said LRM-20's should dominate the game?? Quote me and validate your comment, rather than just speculate on what I DID NOT SAY. You just employed one one of the most classic logic fallacies of all time:


...Back to legging. In all honesty, I think this is an entirely normative argument. Neither party has concrete evidence to support that legging is or is not an easy, broken, or even exploited tactic. We will both argue to the ends of the earth over this one without moving any ground.

In fact, I find surprisingly little evidence in anything you have said thus far. You certainly have raised a good argument, but have very little to back it up. I have time and again supported my position through various mediums (ie: sarna, the games, and statistics), and this seems rather lopsided when you use speculation and belittling personal criticism as the basis for your argument. In other words, prove something for once.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 12 April 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[Scarlett Avignon]

I really wish legging only immobilized a mech, not destroy it. Would make for a more realistic representation. Legging leading to mech destruction is a hold-over from older games where it was used as a cheat to end matches and missions faster. Think this game deserves a bit better. I'd like to see that Atlas I legged still blasting away as it's become a turret. Maybe even let it rotate very slowly so that it can at least try to fight flanking attacks.

[Runz]

Got to say, I feel legging is a viable tactic. If you can shut down an enemy's mobility then you're going to do it. The point is though that you shouldn't be able to get 'an easy kill' through legging by loading up an alphastrike boat and going on a rampage.

Mechwarrior: Living Legends seems to handle it well and you rarely see legging in the matches I've played unless your leg was already significantly damaged compared to the rest of your mech (thereby making it an obvious target). I also used to like the MW2:Mercs way of doing things.

Reducing the size of the hitbox also makes a lot of sense as a viable game design; if you're moving at speed it should be pretty difficult to strike the legs, if you're stood still then people have got the time to line up their shots and take you down.

Just my two c-bills worth

Edit: What with this being an MMO and all, do all the weapons have to hit with pinpoint accuracy all the time? I certainly don't think so and you see a lot of games featuring recoil mechanics or motion rock caused by running (or even on some games when you're not lying in the perfect prone position) that disrupts accuracy.

Using the MW:LL example again, ACs tend to cause recoil when fired excessively rapidly and being struck by missiles causes 'carriage rock'. Wanna stop the enemy brawler from accurately smacking you in the face with its linked lasers? Chain fire your SRMs (or get a buddy to use his SRM if you've not got any) to keep the opposing mech's aim constantly disrupted as best as you can.

The devs have got a lot of options to counteract the legging problem without just outright banning it or disproportionately loading the legs with a shed load of armour (although as someone else mentioned, if someone keeps hitting your vulnerable point you are going to do everything to protect that vulnerable point and load it up with a shed load of armour).

Edited by Runz, 12 April 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[Zylo]

Franklen Avignon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

I really wish legging only immobilized a mech, not destroy it. Would make for a more realistic representation. Legging leading to mech destruction is a hold-over from older games where it was used as a cheat to end matches and missions faster. Think this game deserves a bit better. I'd like to see that Atlas I legged still blasting away as it's become a turret. Maybe even let it rotate very slowly so that it can at least try to fight flanking attacks.

I think legging would be far less common if mechs weren't destroyed when losing both legs. I'm actually curious now if the legs are sectioned into multiple pieces that can be damaged rather than the all or nothing damage system used on the legs in MW2 (I don't remember much of 3 and 4). If damage is spread to different parts of the leg it could make legging harder and also more realistic, if you wanted to take off the whole leg you would need to focus your fire on the hip joint area rather than just hitting any part of the leg.

It would make legging more difficult which would satisfy the concerns of the anti-leggers, while making the tactic more realistic by requiring damage focused in a much smaller area which would make the players wanting more realisim happy as well. Finally the pro-legger group of players would have a much more difficult skill to master, making those who could pull it off earn a reputation similar to those who could pull off a head shot or a DFA.

[Trogusaur]

That is probably one of the most rational responses to this thread so far. Legs are divided up into many more portions than the torsos are, so there really should be some division among damage spread. Unfortunately, I fear you have now awoken the canon-heads, who will respond with "that isn't how the game was played in TT, scrap the idea". IMO if you blow off armor in a certain section, you only damaged that part of the 'mech. Just like torso divisions, legs are very compartmentalized (foot, shin, upper thigh, knee). Instead of beefing up our 'mechs with elephant legs, we can stick to canon levels of armor and still make it hard to leg, just like TT. A fair compromise, well said!

Edited by Lord Trogus, 12 April 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[Zylo]

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Just like torso divisions, legs are very compartmentalized (foot, shin, upper thigh, knee). Instead of beefing up our 'mechs with elephant legs, we can stick to canon levels of armor and still make it hard to leg, just like TT. A fair compromise, well said!

I remember in MW2 it was often easiest to leg a jumping mech by firing lots of missiles under them as they jumped so most would turn up to impact the legs (sure other weapons worked too but you had to figure out the lag lead distance first, yay dialup). Often this did significant damage because the hitbox for the legs on certain mech designs was very large. I seem to remember the TWolf design had huge round hitboxes on the legs that far exceeded the size of each leg so you really couldn't miss if you just shot LRMs or SSRMs in the general direction of their legs.

[Gun Bear]

Total destruction of both legs should have a chance to either totally immobilize your battlemech and turn it into a glorified turret or make your mech fall over yet still otherwise be functional (and for S&Gs mechs with arm and hand actuators should be able to drag themselves along like zombies from a horror flick!)

[Ghost]

If you guys keep bringing up clan stuff in this thread I'm going to start removing it from your posts. There's a forum for that, including it in this discussion is bringing it dangerously off topic.

[Victor Morson]

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

That is assuming you have both the cover and the means to reach the poptart in the first place. You have to close to 300 meters to do any damage, assuming you aren't picked apart by the rest of the team.

Unless a map is horribly broken, this is almost always possible as long as the range support for the brawlers is on point. Which is where those ER PPC / Gauss / Laser snipers really shine, obliterating anything that pops up to harm your brawlers.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

That is comparing two entirely different classes of weapons! The LBX class is essentially a 'mech shotgun, firing cluster or slug rounds, where as a UAC (especially the 2 and 5, the weapons we have been talking about all along) is similar to a semi-automatic tank cannon. That is the equivalent of comparing a shotgun to a battle rifle in a CQB match, the shotty will always win. One is meant for close quarters, while the other is a long range, repeat fire cannon. This is a very poor comparison.

UAC/20s are close range weapons and so are LBX/20s. In MW4, the LBX/20 was pretty far superior to UAC/20s just due to game mechanics and as a result were really a 2nd tier weapon. Hardcore may have been different; in Living Legends they're incredibly good guns and in past games they vary.

But I think it's totally fair to compare two very-short range CQC weapons to each other.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Rules
The proscriptions of zellbrigen consist of the following rules:

Not arguing Clan stuff at the Moderator's request. Entirely off topic anyway.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

I agree on both points, a 4CERPPC Gladiator will probably beat another with UAC2's, mostly because of damage spread on the UACs, and the armor overhaul on such a 'mech. I will conduct a sim on MW4 between bots and give a score summary of the results. (played out on map MekBowl, notorious for the wide open spaces). This argument did go off-topic, and I apologize to the OP for that. However, we are still discussing commonly used tactics, a category that both jump sniping and legging fall into.

Basing anything entirely on MechWarrior 4 is a bad idea. Not just because it's just one take on the game (and I'm really figuring in MW1-4 + LL + MPBT3025 in my discussion, as well as TT, so pretty much anything we've had to go on from past experience) but because it also depends on which version of MW4 you're playing. Vanilla, BK, Mercs and Hardcore are wildly different to say the very least; even the light AC topic wildly shifted from "entirely useless" (how they've generally been in official products) to "incredibly awesome" in HardCore. So ultimately your tests won't mean anything.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

That is an exaggeration of my position. You are implying all terrible weapons should be placed on a chassis, when all weapons are meant to hold a degree of balance. One of my favorite puretech Battlemaster designs features a pair of UAC5's, tried and true to be able to down 'mechs heavier than itself. Even a MG boat can dominate a match if used correctly.

MGs have a bad rap on Table Top because the designs do a terrible just exploiting them. If more 'mechs carried 4-6 machine guns and a half ton of ammo (opposed to a full ton), they'd be a stellar close range weapon. Unfortunately in pretty much every past MechWarrior game, machine guns have been entirely horrible even by canon standards, with the exception of Living Legends as an anti-infantry / aircraft weapon with non-canon range buffs.

That said, a pair of UAC/5s isn't very good no matter the game or era. The effective UAC designs in Hardcore were boating a large number of them, and even in Living Legends just two of them aren't going to be enough to do more than mildly harass helicopters. The sheer weight required for twin UAC/5s (probably the best of the light ACs - LBX/5 and Ultra/2s are hilariously terrible) hampers the design greatly.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

If you don't like the fact that we are both arguing on multiple fronts not related to this thread, call it quits here and debate over PM.

I just think someone needs to respond to these legging threads that represents the majority. Most people who feel the same as I do about legging will say "It's fine" and then go away, while the crowd that hates it will post and post and post and something needs to be said to balance it out and give a fair representation of the community. I am rather hoping PGI will take the same "Deal with it" stance that the MWLL devs have done, because it is far and away the correct way to address this.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Yes, yes I am. According to the stats I posted straight from MW4, a pair of UAC2's will do nearly double the damage over time than that of a Gauss. Assuming both pilots are of equal skill, the UAC pilot will at least spread more cumulative damage than the Gauss pilot. This does not take into account the fact that most 'mechs capable of carrying either weapons can carry a full complement of others as well. Add just a PPC or some lasers, and Gauss pilot is doomed. Give it jump jets, and it is king of the world.

Again, if we're talking about Hardcore, UAC boats can be effective. But a pair of them won't provide enough rock to stop the Gauss pilot from smacking you - the problem is that with chip weapons, you need to keep firing and firing to a 'mech that can spread that damage all over it's body, but then can aim and hit you in the same spot fairly easily with every blast.

That said, I'm figuring you are talking about Hardcore if 2x UAC/2 can deliver double the damage of a Gauss rifle. In TT (and most MechWarrior games, accordingly) the Gauss would deliver 3.75 times as much damage to a single localized spot, which is a huge difference.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

I also noticed how you seem to think that I said LRM-20's should dominate the game?? Quote me and validate your comment, rather than just speculate on what I DID NOT SAY. You just employed one one of the most classic logic fallacies of all time:

I can't think of any other reason you'd suddenly bring up an LRM boating Rifleman being the king of the field in past games, while damning current games for favoring jump jets?

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

...Back to legging. In all honesty, I think this is an entirely normative argument. Neither party has concrete evidence to support that legging is or is not an easy, broken, or even exploited tactic. We will both argue to the ends of the earth over this one without moving any ground.

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.

Lord Trogus, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

In fact, I find surprisingly little evidence in anything you have said thus far. You certainly have raised a good argument, but have very little to back it up. I have time and again supported my position through various mediums (ie: sarna, the games, and statistics), and this seems rather lopsided when you use speculation and belittling personal criticism as the basis for your argument. In other words, prove something for once.

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.

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?

[Zylo]

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

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?

I suspect the whole anti-legging thing comes from bad experiences in past games involving the tactic. Probably a case of some players using a mech without jumpjets that got legged while the enemies went off to gang up on the remaining team member(s) while the legged guy sat there unable to do anything. I don't think the anti-legging crowd really wants legging removed but instead wants a more realistic approach to leg damage to make it far more difficult to kill a mech just by taking off both legs.

My personal opinion on the matter is that if I have to play an IS faction I'm going to fight dirty meaning legs are a target as long as they make tactical sense to hit. In short, whatever I can do to kill the enemy mech as fast as possible is the tactic I'll generally stick to. My use of some tactics may change if clans become available factions in the future, but that's another topic since the mods don't want OT clan stuff here.

[Motionless]

Zylo, on 13 April 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

I don't think the anti-legging crowd really wants legging removed but instead wants a more realistic approach to leg damage to make it far more difficult to kill a mech just by taking off both legs.

Legs being a great target situationally seams realistic to me for bipedal war machines.

Zylo, on 13 April 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

My personal opinion on the matter is that if I have to play an IS faction I'm going to fight dirty meaning legs are a target as long as they make tactical sense to hit. In short, whatever I can do to kill the enemy mech as fast as possible is the tactic I'll generally stick to. My use of some tactics may change if clans become available factions in the future, but that's another topic since the mods don't want OT clan stuff here.

I don't see why fighting smart needs to be "fighting dirty."

[Zylo]

Motionless, on 13 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Legs being a great target situationally seams realistic to me for bipedal war machines.


I don't see why fighting smart needs to be "fighting dirty."

It doesn't need to be considered fighting dirty, though I figure just as in the past my enemies will see it this way. I come from a clan background when I played MW2 and many of my enemies hated the tactic so I do sort of see it as fighting dirty from that past experience. I tend to agree that it's fighting smart if that is the weakest point of the mech, which seemed to be the case in MW2.

[Belisarius1]

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

Again, if we're talking about Hardcore, UAC boats can be effective. But a pair of them won't provide enough rock to stop the Gauss pilot from smacking you - the problem is that with chip weapons, you need to keep firing and firing to a 'mech that can spread that damage all over it's body, but then can aim and hit you in the same spot fairly easily with every blast.

That said, I'm figuring you are talking about Hardcore if 2x UAC/2 can deliver double the damage of a Gauss rifle. In TT (and most MechWarrior games, accordingly) the Gauss would deliver 3.75 times as much damage to a single localized spot, which is a huge difference.

He's not talking about hardcore. The numbers he posted are (I'm almost certain, it has been a while) different to HC's. If he is, the burden is really on him to make that clear. HC was always a niche project that you shouldn't need to address when talking to the average player. Most don't even know what it is.

Lighter UACs actually had fairly reasonable DPS even in vanilla, it was just that they also had short range, a complete lack of rock and required you to stand in the open like a noob.

I remember screwing around with a gajillion-uac2 daishi back in PR1. It was a terrible 'mech, but it was also kind of fun because it did a surprising amount of damage and often players wouldn't even notice you were shooting them.

Edited by Belisarius†, 13 April 2012 - 06:08 PM.