232 replies to this topic

[Scav]

Nah. It makes sense to vote for 'ofc', but in PVP terms, ya reward miss shots to the center torso while taking away from ppl who actually aim for arms. Reduced efficiency is a nice balance.

[Killashnikov]

I believe there is an easy answer to this....
Give the shoulder joint a critical, if the shoulder is destroyed the arm falls off.

[SmartAlec]

It seems to me that if there aren't fall back systems in place to prevent a hole through my side torso from shutting down my big gun, then whoever is designing these mechs has no sense of practicality. These are giant metal machines, so I can't imagine putting some holes in a large chunk of metal is necessarily going to make my arm fall off. Also, from a game perspective, "side" torso is a much bigger area than "shoulder." It would suck majorly if a good shot just above the belt line made your arm stop working. I'm voting keep the arms working, because I think the engineers of the future aren't stupid, and because I'd rather see people who get shot through the shoulder have their arm still fully functional than some poor sap get his belt blown away and his arm turns off.

[3Xtr3m3]

[THOMAS] Implement gameplay features. Fix bugs. Get yelled at by designers.


[ENRIQUE] It’s actually quite a lot of hard work involved. The nature of the ‘mechs means that this is not the usual game pipeline required to create a playable character. i.e a single organic mesh that you weight to the skeleton. The fact that they are destructible and customizable imposes a new set of challenges for artist, animators and coders.


[ENRIQUE] The richness of the environments is off the charts, and there is a cathartic satisfaction in being able to blow off the arms of your opponents.

[THOMAS] It’s hard to please everyone. Every player is unique in their perception of what is happening. That is the biggest challenge is building something that will satisfy everyone.

Part of the dev blog part 5 that relates to this topic, I think.

My take is that they are listening to the people and the game designers and engineers are trying to get it right in a way that satisfies everyone. Arms can be taken off, but no direct evidence of side-torso loss equaling loss of limb. They are paying attention to the "mnufacturing" of the Mechs and trying to build in-game physics for when things get damaged/destroyed.

[Hans Landa]

We should see what happens in the mechbay. Do we need to rebuy the weaps we equip every tiime they are destroyed? How much will they cost?

Another option is that if they destroy the side torso, all the weaps in that place are destroyed and the arm weaps are disabled, but at the end of the match we still have the arm weaps

[RedHairDave]

the skeleton is modelled, you will be able to damage it separate from the torso armour and internals, so if the skeleton is intact, the are is there, if not, it falls off. it was mentioned in one of the interviews

[Sprouticus]

RedHairDave, on 22 March 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

the skeleton is modelled, you will be able to damage it separate from the torso armour and internals, so if the skeleton is intact, the are is there, if not, it falls off. it was mentioned in one of the interviews

Do you have a link on that? I cant find it.

I do like that idea (as well as the idea of having a shoulder joint crit).

In the end it is about game balance. I am fine with either decision if PGI thinks one way or the other will skew balance for play.

[RedHairDave]

um ya, hold on, i will edit it in, just saving the spot

[color=#CCCCCC] 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]

Edited by RedHairDave, 22 March 2012 - 05:51 AM.

[Sprouticus]

RedHairDave, on 22 March 2012 - 05:50 AM, said:

um ya, hold on, i will edit it in, just saving the spot

[color=#CCCCCC]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]

But that doesnt imply that the skeleton would be used in hit/destruction dynamic. I would LIKE it too. (crit slot for should joint seems a good compromise) but that is my preference.

[RedHairDave]

i kinda thought it did, if everything is attacked to a skeleton, wouldnt you have to destroy the skeleton to have peices fall off?

[Seabear]

My take is that if the torso is detroyed, the internal structure supporting the arm is gone. There is no support for the weapon. If the sheer weight of the weapon doesn't cause it to fall off, the recoil of the first shot will. As for recoilless weapons such as lasers, the power and command wiring is gone, so they don't work.

[3Xtr3m3]

take a close look at the Nova. How do you shoot it criticaly in the side and have the arm fall off, but not the leg?
The leg is between the Side and the Arm. Destroy the side armour and the Mech looses both?!? Absurd.

[Solis Obscuri]

3Xtr3m3, on 22 March 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

take a close look at the Nova. How do you shoot it criticaly in the side and have the arm fall off, but not the leg?
The leg is between the Side and the Arm. Destroy the side armour and the Mech looses both?!? Absurd.

Maybe that's why production stopped by 2921...

[GrimFist]

Destroyed = no structure, no armor, just mashed up bits that dont stop anything and do let bad things like your engine blow up.

Most reactors took up a slot or two, or three on each side. If the torso was really all blown up, typically the mech was not be far behind to be all blown up.

As for weapons working in the arm, nuts! Let it fall. I want to know the Atlas loses its arm so I can run circles around it with a med or light plinking away at the torn up left or right torso and totalling ruining their day.

I want the mechs to look like ships on eve who are torn to snot and smoking and on fire when they are in a bad way. You know they are messed up and then those lights and meds move in like sharks for the kill on that assualt mech who went to the wrong part of town.

[3Xtr3m3]

However, the number of Novas has been diminishing, because the design has not been in production since 2921. Designed as an early OmniMech by Clan Hell's Horses, the Nova was produced at the famous Tokasha Mechworks beginning in 2870. At the time of its introduction, the Nova was designed for infantry support, and was the first OmniMech designed with hardpoints allowing elementals to easily mount and dismount the chassis. However, after Tokasha was taken by Clan Ghost Bear during the Battle of Tokasha, production of the Nova ceased. Since 2921, every Clan has acquired Nova OmniMechs as isorla.[2][4][5]

One, The above is from Sarna.
Two, I thought you were pulling my leg actuator, you were not. My apologies.
Three, I am shocked at this revelation. Obviously.
And Last, CGB are idiots for letting a prime favorite design decline like that. Shame on them.
A trial of something or other needs to be waged on the surats.

[UncleKulikov]

It depends. I'm nervous about boats being able to just shear off side torsos in one hit, in which case I suggest limiting the arm's effectiveness. And think about it, if the side torso is gone ... how long will the mech last?

[chaz706]

This only makes sense: if there's nothing to attach the arm to it falls off.

Anything else is just too much handwavium for me to accept.

[AussieGiant]

You have to go with the first option which most of us are selecting.

As for "boats"...well...I just don't have a good way around preventing these maniacs from doing what they do...

[3Xtr3m3]

Who decided to resurrect this dead thread?

[FrostPaw]

It just makes sense to me the arm should lose it's function when the connections for all it's articulation and firing mechanisms are severed between the cocpit control and the arm, given side torsos should have more armour than arms it would still be quicker to disable an arm than go for the torso sections.