232 replies to this topic

[Hayden]

Considering this encourages torso shots (as opposed to say, legging), I say keep it as it is. The failure of the attached arm represents not only the loss of the armor covering the adjacent torso, but the internal structure underneath as well: it seems that the loss of that structural integrity means that the arm cannot be properly supported, and will fall off, which I see as reasonable.

[Liam]

It can be done by RNG, because it depends on type / amount of damage and hit location.
Its not like actuator /power supply etc. for arm are placed right behind side torsos armor plates.

[Hanyit Greyhame]

I think it kind of should be both. When all of the armor has been stripped off of the torso, you should be able to fire as per normal. As the LT/RT takes more damage (potentially one shot to it), you lose more and more control of the arm, until the skeleton of the shoulder is completely destroyed and snaps off, therefore losing the arm. So I think it should be variable, to the the extent the engine can make it slightly random. IMO, this would stop the "kill the LT/RT's and the mech can't do anything" tactic that is sure to show up if the arms always are lost when the torsos are destroyed.

Regards,

Hanyit Greyhame

[Philipe von Rohrs]

ice trey, on 08 February 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Of course.

It'd be really nice if there was an animation to it, too; like, the torso structure collapses and the arm just tears off the torso location.

Better yet, if the destroyed arm was perpetually on the battlefield - at least if the games don't have respawn. if they DO have respawn, then have it on the field until the 'mech it belongs to respawns.

And if you could pick it up....... ;-)

[autogyro]

I would prefer a hybrid of yes and no, if an ammo explosion occurs in the left or right torso the corresponding arm should go with it, otherwise you should maintain reduced functionality. This would yield greater targetting of 'Mech arms and adds to game tactics.

[100mile]

Well if you define destroy as "internall strcture" is reduced to 0, then yes.
If you have removed the structure in the torso then the components that allow the cockpit to controll the arm are gone.
I guess if you say that destroy just means that part of the torso l/r has taken so much damage that the systems housed there are all offline, then maby some of the internal connections to the arm could still be intact even though the primary systems are destroyed or offline.

I agree with this assesment...just depends on whether the dev's can fine tune the damage that way or not..

[Hunter McGee]

Don't even really see a need for this poll except to allow the Scientifically Challenged to spout some drivel about how they want to keep the arm mounted PPC's even though they couldn't even protect the torso they were hung on.

Come on peeps... Using the laws of physics can you realistically explain to me how in the world you could keep the arm? Okay, analogy time:
Take a tree... blow the Trunk to tiny pieces, now is the branch still there? Sure it is... on the freakin ground!

No contest, no torso, no arm.

[VYCanis]

its not a realism thing, its a gameplay thing

can you honestly say, if there was a mech circling you with all arm mounted weapons, but the arms themselves are fairly compact, that you'd ever waste time aiming at them, and not just attempt to scoop out the side torsos every time in order to make the arms fall off?

i just don't want to see L/R-torsos in MWO become the new MW4 c-torso, where everything else is a waste of time to aim for. There needs to be a legitimate reason to aim for the arms

Edited by VYCanis, 09 February 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

VYCanis, on 09 February 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

its not a realism thing, its a gameplay thing

can you honestly say, if there was a mech circling you with all arm mounted weapons, but the arms themselves are fairly compact, that you'd ever waste time aiming at them, and not just attempt to scoop out the side torsos every time in order to make the arms fall off?

i just don't want to see L/R-torsos in MWO become the new MW4 c-torso, where everything else is a waste of time to aim for. There needs to be a legitimate reason to aim for the arms

Agreed totally. Reducing a Mech to a 2 Hitbox target is very not good. Sounds good on paper as they say but not in real gameplay scenarios.

[a rabid chihuahua]

One thing I noticed in BT is even if the torso is dead,the arm is not considered blown off,just inoperative, the arm would be considered blown off on a double 6 crit if I recall. So it can be destroyed but still hanging like a jumbled mess on the mech ,which I would think could still look cool,if it's not entirely blown off. However it deffinately should loose function when the torso is destroyed.

Edited by Blane, 09 February 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[crazy jake]

When I played MW as a table-top game, I accepted the fact that a destroyed torso also meant the arm and subsequent weapon were lying useless on the battlefield....

Thats when I decided to use Mechs that had hands!

I picked up that useless arm/weapon and used it as a club!

WHACK!
POW!

Ahhhh the crazy looks on my friends' faces.

But it's possible!

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Spinner, on 09 February 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

Also, a good mech pilot know's how to defend his mech from you wanting to target a specific area of the mech. Varying speeds to torso twisting arms into shields. There are various tactics to employ. TT took those into account with it's To hit modifiers. Your personal skill is just replacing a stat on a piece of paper. I can blast away rapidly, hit when and where I can, or I can take my time and snipe locations, the question is, is sniping doing more damage faster than someone accurately spraying and praying, not caring where he hits as long as he hits?

You put to much emphasis on "self shielding." If you truly believe you can twist a little bit or change your speed fast emough to throw off my shot, you are very much mistaken. An arm is not going to conceal the side torso, and all you are doing is lowering your speed and putting yourself in a position where you can only return fire every few seconds, because you have to re-twist back around. The excuse of "Just cover it up" has never been a good solution to balance issues in games, and it still holds true here.

In addition, I do not believe that having a torso section destroyed indicates that it has been completely annihilated. It is more as if the area had the armor breached and taken critical damage to the point where most systems are inoperable. Although some systems to the arm might be damaged, remember that BattleMechs usually have triple if not quadruple redundancy for many systems. It is likely that there is still control of the arm unit, but if the design stores ammunition in the torso, then that is probably lost (not like you would want to shoot balistics in the arm anyways at that point, it might shear what is left right off!). However power may still be able to reach laser weapons, and the arm might have some range of motion.

[Nick Makiaveli]

I think we need some clarification of the word "destroyed". Just because it no longer can take damage, doesn't mean you have completely disintegrated it.

Also, as mentioned earlier, it worked on the TT because in the original rules you couldn't target specific locations and later on you had penalties. With FPS aiming, that system may not hold up. Or lead to "videogame tactics", ie stuff that would never fly in the real world. Not making a little mind/hobgoblin realism argument, just saying I would like to see something resembling real tactics used.

For a RW example, "flicking" in fencing. You literally flick your opponent with the tip causing the sensor to trip and score a hit. Works in the game, but in the real world it would barely scratch them. So much for it being a "combat sim" at this point.

[Phoenix888]

Simply....

To my mind you have to have damage to the torso resulting in slow system failure to the arm over time and extended damage focus on this area causing the arm to simply fall off. In the case where the arm has fallen off, most of the systems in the arm would be so badly damaged that it would'nt make much difference anyway. In the same vain, but to to a much lesser degree the damage to the arm should result in slow system failure to the torso section on that side until the arm falls off.

Of course for this to work effectively the torso would need to be significanty better protected/armoured since it is a much easier target by comparison to the arm. The balance needs to be in place so that the arm shots are harder to get but will give a quick result in reducing mech firepower over the torso being a more lengthy but overtime far more cripling option.

To add to this you could make the arms the only sections that house certain vital electronic modules to further entice the enemy into making the arms the focus. In turn these particular modules would not be affected by torso damage.

Just my 2 penny worth....

Edited by Phoenix888, 09 February 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[Zerik]

Nick Makiaveli, on 09 February 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

I think we need some clarification of the word "destroyed". Just because it no longer can take damage, doesn't mean you have completely disintegrated it.

Well, technically speaking, there exists no known solid material that is unable to take damage. Therefor "destroyed" in the sense that a component (be it arm, side torso, torso, leg, head) is no longer able to take damage would mean that there is nothing there to be damaged, and thus, no armor, internal structure, or components. That being the case, the side torso being destroyed to the point of unable to take damage would mean that the arm would indeed fall off, because there is nothing there to hold it on. Redundant cables for systems in the arm aside, since those would be gone aswell having had to be routed through the side torso. (the only real exception here being a 'Mech where the arms are in fact mounted on the center torso. I have yet to find such a 'Mech)

Now, on a less realistic take, it would seriously suck to go out into the field and get my side torso ripped apart by some AC/20 toting UrbanMech posing as some glorified trashcan advertisement (it can happen). I would, however, be more concearned indeed about the ammo explosion tearing into the center torso than my 'Mech's former arm flying off into the sunset (or preferably flying out to slap that Urbie in the cockpit!)

So in game terms, it can lead to balancing issues, assuming that all weapons have the accuracy to always hit wherever you're aiming at all times regardless of your speed or lack thereof. Perhaps an implementation of cone-of-fire mechanics on weapons would help?

Edit for lack of coffee causing missing words

Edited by Zerik, 09 February 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[VYCanis]

well unable to take further damage isn't as clear cut as that.

i mean lets say you have 2 cars, and you run them headon into each other at 70mph each

each car is totaled. parts litter the ground, metal twisted and bent, engines mangled and intertwined with each other, wheels canted at odd angles.

for all intents and purposes, those cars around the point of contact and their engines are destroyed. Most of their primary structural supports compromised, and almost nothing functional.

but what would you call going up to said wreck, and smacking a few things off of it with a clawhammer or a pointblank shot from a shotgun? More damage? even though everything you hit/shot was likely already broken?

TL-DR its not far fetched to have something "destroyed" but still there capable of soaking more damage or holding things together. its just a matter of all that mangled mess still being there an there as dead metal where there is very little you could do to it that hasn't been done already.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Zerik, on 09 February 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Well, technically speaking, there exists no known solid material that is unable to take damage. Therefor "destroyed" in the sense that a component (be it arm, side torso, torso, leg, head) is no longer able to take damage would mean that there is nothing there to be damaged, and thus, no armor, internal structure, or components. That being the case, the side torso being destroyed to the point of unable to take damage would mean that the arm would indeed fall off, because there is nothing there to hold it on. Redundant cables for systems in the arm aside, since those would be gone aswell having had to be routed through the side torso. (the only real exception here being a 'Mech where the arms are in fact mounted on the center torso. I have yet to find such a 'Mech)

Now, on a less realistic take, it would seriously suck to go out into the field and get my side torso ripped apart by some AC/20 toting UrbanMech posing as some glorified trashcan advertisement (it can happen). I would, however, be more concearned indeed about the ammo explosion tearing into the center torso than my 'Mech's former arm flying off into the sunset (or preferably flying out to slap that Urbie in the cockpit!)

So in game terms, it can lead to balancing issues, assuming that all weapons have the accuracy to always hit wherever you're aiming at all times regardless of your speed or lack thereof. Perhaps an implementation of cone-of-fire mechanics on weapons would help?

Edit for lack of coffee causing missing words

I meant it in game terms. As in it doesn't take damage anymore because all the components used in the game have been wiped out. Also, in the TT when a section is destroyed all other damage moves along a predetermined path, so a side torso that is damaged would pass any additional damage along to the Center Torso (unless my old brain is failing me again). That is what I was referring to. Doesn't mean it has been completely blown away and the arm is just floating in mid-air. Just that the armor is gone and it provides no protection (in game terms) from shots hitting the CT.

**edit**
What VYCanis said. Smashing a busted windshield into even smaller pieces is technically doing more damage, but in game terms, wouldn't be doing more damage.

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 09 February 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Zerik]

To both of the above, yes, I entirely understand that in game terms you can "destroy" something from a standpoint of functionality and still have matter left. That's why I said the top was all technically speaking.
Realistically, just because damage is negligable dosen't mean that it dosen't exist. Unfortunantly though this is not often translated into game terms, either because of limitations of programming or due to a feeling that scrap should be immortal. Personally, I would like to reduce my opponents from a 100 ton BattleMech to a pile of slag if I so felt like it. In those terms, "destruction to the point of no longer taking damage" refers to the material itself, not just the functionality...Even though if it's still holding the arm on and allowing it to function, technically then the side torso is still retaining 50% of the functionality that I want it there for.

[ManDaisy]

destroyed in my mind is like ripping a piece off. If you rip off a side torso naturally an arm is going to come off with it. Also anything that the arm connected to thru that side torso if gonna be gone, circuitry whatever. The most realistic approach however would just be to disable any weapons in the arm, but still leave it as a shield to take damage because it would still have its armor and internal... unless the whole torso was ripped off as I first mentioned.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Zerik, on 09 February 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

To both of the above, yes, I entirely understand that in game terms you can "destroy" something from a standpoint of functionality and still have matter left. That's why I said the top was all technically speaking.
Realistically, just because damage is negligable dosen't mean that it dosen't exist. Unfortunantly though this is not often translated into game terms, either because of limitations of programming or due to a feeling that scrap should be immortal. Personally, I would like to reduce my opponents from a 100 ton BattleMech to a pile of slag if I so felt like it. In those terms, "destruction to the point of no longer taking damage" refers to the material itself, not just the functionality...Even though if it's still holding the arm on and allowing it to function, technically then the side torso is still retaining 50% of the functionality that I want it there for.

I hear what you are saying, but literally reducing it to slag would mean blasting it when it was a non-functioning machine. Basically just breaking the pieces into smaller pieces.

So if I am shooting you and your arm is useless now, I would like the game to just ignore it and pass the damage along to another part of your mech rather than continuing to do cosmetic damage.