232 replies to this topic

[shortpainter]

Losing the arm when the torso is destroyed is one of the fundamental rules of the game (as seen by nearly every iteration of the Battletech/Mechwarrior universe).

When it comes to mech parts in the TT game, the word "destroyed" means that part is gone and not salvageable. It is removed from the game. A destroyed torso literally means the entire side of your mech is missing, open to the elements and exposed to incoming fire. There is no structure for the arm to hang on to.

[MaddMaxx]

autogyro, on 13 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Just wanted to update this, since it doesn't seem like anybody has, but David Bradley's Atlas at 29 seconds does manage to fire weapons out of its left arm, despite losing its left torso which is completely destroyed (you can see the LRM 20 has been knocked out and no internals are left on the damage indicator). So I guess at this stage, losing a torso doesn't also wipe out that side's arms.

A fine catch.

[Solis Obscuri]

MaddMaxx, on 23 February 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

You didn't try the MechLab did you? It indicates that unless you strip armor from other locations, and a lot of it, it will take nothing near extended concentrated fire to destroy half the weapons system on a Catapult. With a Max. of 30pts allowed, given a Stock build, 2 shots from a Hunchbacks AC-20 could cripple a Cat.

Anyways, let's see what the Beta determines. I would hate to have folks start calling our BattleMechs, "DaintyMechs" due to a bad mechanic. (no offense to the Dev meant btw)

I don't have to **** around in some "Mechlab" program to know that the Catapult only carries 10 tons of armor. It's a fire support 'mech, it isn't designed to stand around taking hits all day like an Atlas. Complaining that the Catapult can't strip armor from torso sections without creating vulnerabilities is like complaining that the Atlas doesn't run at 97kph. However, unlike the Atlas, you actually could up-armor your Catapult, if you were willing to sacrifice some combination of weapons, heat sinks, and jump jets to add a few tons of armor. The CLPT-A1 and CLPT-K2 variants both address this in different ways.

Frankly, the limited ammo supply of the CLPT-C1 Catapult bothers me more than its armor, which is generally adequate for a vehicle meant to stay out of heavy fire. It's a hell of a lot more survivable than a Rifleman or Jagermech!

[Felicitatem Parco]

autogyro, on 13 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Just wanted to update this, since it doesn't seem like anybody has, but David Bradley's Atlas at 29 seconds does manage to fire weapons out of its left arm, despite losing its left torso which is completely destroyed (you can see the LRM 20 has been knocked out and no internals are left on the damage indicator). So I guess at this stage, losing a torso doesn't also wipe out that side's arms.

Slight objection: David Bradley's Atlas had the AC/20 knocked out of comission as evident by the list of hostile mech weapons in the top-right cornor of the HUD. But, you are right in that his arm laser was still firing.

I guess we have functional arms without functional torsos now

Edited by Prosperity Park, 13 March 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[simon1812]

I dont know, it seems a little too gratuitous too easy, destroy right torso and everything on the mechs right sides goes to hell? for starters the arms themselves arent that hard to fire at r they? maybe destroying the side torso causes the arm attached to perform poorly, like the arm now makes a effort to keep up with the pilot's commands (maybe 1-2 seconds behind), ballistic weapons get jammed more often, energy weapons misfire (resulting in overheat) every 3-5 shots or something.

[Fachxphyre]

Yeah, I envision that when the torso section is totally destroyed, it means that virtually everything up to and including the hardpoints and control wiring for the arm connected to it would also be destroyed.

[J0anna]

I'm firmly in the "no side torso = no arm" camp. Especially since losing the side torso in TT in an Inner Sphere XL Engine mech = dead mech (lose 3 parts of engine is considered mech death)

[Pulispher]

Great poll! Coming from TT first then straight into MW4, I thought I would be the only one to want to lose the arm.

[LordDeathStrike]

VYCanis, on 09 February 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

ehhh this is one of those things where i don't quite think the rules translate quite well, and here's why.

because as we all know, TT= scattered hit impacts, you spread damage around, and assuming any decent amount of armor, having any 1 location blow through was something that could take a while to happen, and focusing on any 1 location was fraught with difficulty.

In real time though, part of the skill in MW games comes down heavily on prioritizing and focusing attention on individual locations, which themselves could be trick y to hit under various circumstances, to disable your target's various parts in order to make him less effective, then dead. Various different chassis having different areas that could be taken advantage of due to how their stuff is mounted.

so, in this case, if blowing through a side torso makes the attached arm fall off, what possible reason does a player have for targeting arms on a mech when they're getting a 2 for 1 special for taking the easier torso shot?

keep in mind, side torsos are where the XL crits go, ammo is stored more than half the time, most heatsinks are, heck most anything is crammed in them. They are already pretty damn temping targets without causing the attached arm to plop off too.

game would get boring pretty quick if it just boiled down to shoot slightly off center of mass every time.

you want to aim for the head or ct for the kill, taking out both side torsos to completely disarm a mechs weapons is going to take longer unless you are a horrible shot.

Edited by LordDeathStrike, 16 March 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[3Xtr3m3]

I feel completely vindicated by the gameplay video.

My take was, from a previous post, and my personal vote on the poll......

IT DEPENDS ON THE MECH MANUFACTURE.

An Atlas who loses the side torso AND the arm, is nonsensical. A bad design.

A Jenner that loses the side torso and the arm, I can see the logic of that.
It is built for speed, and the lighter it is, the faster it is. So a shortcut that relies on the side torso to support/operate the arm is a compromise I cn live with.

Assaults should not lose functionality (specifically, the arm falling off or stop working)
Heavies should not lose functionality

Mediums I can see going both ways. Some will lose functionality, some won't.

Lights I can see losing the arm if the side torso is destroyed.
I don't WANT them to, but I can understand the logic.


To sum up. It depends on the logic behind its manufacture. And the video backs my hopes that side torso lose does not equal arm loss.

[Jake Valeck]

yes. destroyed

[RedHairDave]

it totally depends, what if the arm is held on in a similar way the human one is, with a bone across the top, and all the shot you took on the torso was in the middle area, sure the torso is gone, there are holes in one side and out the other, but the structure at the top, that is holding the arm on, is still there, unless you shot it out on purpose.

look at the atlas, most torso shots would be well below the part the arm is attached to. so if they can model the internal structure that holds it on, and you can hit it directly, sure the arm should fall off, but if you just distroy the left torso below the arm connector then it should be there still, likely powered. the cabeling would be in the structure most likely

there are veriables in design also, if the arm is directly connected to the super structure, then not likely. if its only bolted on to the torso, then sure why not. you have to assume the heavies and assaults are built tougher than the meds and lights. maybe meds and lights only bolt on, and heavy and assault use an internal skeleton that you would then have to destroy(it would be hard to hit, very small compared to the torso. imagine a stick man, with a huge suit of armour filled with stuff. just cuz you destroy the suit and all the stuff doesnt mean you hit the skeleton. unless you did, it should be modelled.

Edited by RedHairDave, 21 March 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Solis Obscuri, on 13 March 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I don't have to **** around in some "Mechlab" program to know that the Catapult only carries 10 tons of armor. It's a fire support 'mech, it isn't designed to stand around taking hits all day like an Atlas. Complaining that the Catapult can't strip armor from torso sections without creating vulnerabilities is like complaining that the Atlas doesn't run at 97kph. However, unlike the Atlas, you actually could up-armor your Catapult, if you were willing to sacrifice some combination of weapons, heat sinks, and jump jets to add a few tons of armor. The CLPT-A1 and CLPT-K2 variants both address this in different ways.

Frankly, the limited ammo supply of the CLPT-C1 Catapult bothers me more than its armor, which is generally adequate for a vehicle meant to stay out of heavy fire. It's a hell of a lot more survivable than a Rifleman or Jagermech!

I will give kudos where kudos are due.

Kudos for totally missing the point. Well done.

How about pulling some Lasers for more ammo. It has lots of em.

Problem solved for that Fire Support Mech of yours.

[John Wolf]

It depends on mech construction and design. We are for the most part assuming that a 'destroyed' side torso means there is 'nothing left'. If this is true, then there should be nothing to connect the arm to on some mechs, and hence any wiring connection from the arm to the CT systems are fubar as well.

However, a destruction of a side torso may just mean the destruction of all TORSO related systems. Allowing the systems in the arms to operate and continue firing.

Looks like this conversation needs a Dev or Designer intervention to dictate what a 'destroyed' location means. Have we gotten that yet from anyone cause if so I missed it.

Edit: The simple fact that the games in the series differed means this may have been an uncertain dynamic already.

Edited by John Wolf, 21 March 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[RedHairDave]

they did say that the skeleton is modelled, it might have hit points. i see no reason that the left/right torso cant be destroyed without destroying the arm, but if the skeleton connecting the arm is destroyed, then the arm falls off.


"[ENRIQUE][color=#CCCCCC] Lately I’ve been increasingly delegating the animation work and concentrating more in the process of rigging the Mechs for the game engine. That will usually involve creating the skeleton to which all the ‘mech parts are attached,"[/color]

[Solis Obscuri]

MaddMaxx, on 21 March 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

I will give kudos where kudos are due. Kudos for totally missing the point. Well done. How about pulling some Lasers for more ammo. It has lots of em. Problem solved for that Fire Support Mech of yours.

The CLPT-A1 already takex that approach. The CLPT-C4 pulls heat sinks, too, and upgrades to LRM-20s.

There are really quite a few ways the base Catapult chassis can be modified while remaining an effective fire support vehicle, though completely gutting the side torsos really isn't one of them.

[Dark Fox]

Wow this is a popular topic. So big it's simply tl;dr for the majority of the posts.

But to answer the question the poll is asking.

If you make it so destroying the side torsos also destroys(or making it completely non functioning) the arm it's attached to - what would be the point of targeting an arm or anything else anymore at that point? It would be a cue to players "oh target one of the side torsos, because that means I'm taking out TWO parts at once."

Take a mech like the Vulture. A side torso houses it's missles then it's attached arms have more weapons. Destroying just a side torso destroys half of it's weapons. Seems like it would pick on certain mechs more than others. Ones that have no weapons on side torso and just have weapons on center torso or arms would have the advantage over ones that only have weapons on side torsos and arms.

[Sassori]

Quit trying to differentiate between Clan and Inner Sphere when it comes to torso hits and XL engines. Yes if you frag a clan XL side torso the mech isn't dead completely, but it's close. Two engine hits is pretty much game over, that's to much heat to really deal with and still fight efficiently. +10 heat per turn. Ouch.

Now as this is the BattleTech universe, when the torso is destroyed it is /gone/ all aspects of it are no longer present and thus useless. The arm falls to the ground.

This whole idea that you can still use 50% of the arm when the supporting structure for it has been /destroyed/ is... I just don't have the words.

Now the tricky part isn't what happens, it's defining the hit boxes. Some mech's have well defined arms, some don't. It'd be REAL easy to hit the arm of a catapult, or a stalker, while trying to hit the torso for example. Just make the hit box for the /arm/ actually extend into the torso a bit so the /shoulder/ area is also an arm hit and all the sudden coring a torso isn't so clear cut is it.

Easy fix people.

[StaIker]

Quote

Yes, a destroyed side-torso should lose weapon functions in the attached arm. (as per TT, MW2 and MW3)

Keep in mind that this is bad news for any Mech that has its weapons concentrated on one side of the chassis. Said Mech will be a prime target for fire into the torso because a few hits will virtually cripple it. Careful what you wish for, even if it is canon. Players are not nearly as forgiving as dice rolls.

[GrimRATS]

I believe that if someone takes a shotgun to my shoulder and fires, I don't think I can continue to use my hand attached to said shoulder. Mechs are tanks on legs, yea so using an organic as an example may not be the best choice, but I believe it is enough to prove my point.

*EDIT* Ok maybe some people can still use their arms, but they must be real angry and dopped up on pain killers or something, so thinking mech, maybe some smaller weapons would still be able to fire but I don't think the main weapons should function.

Edited by GrimRATS, 21 March 2012 - 11:30 PM.