HATER-1, on 09 February 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:
this conversation is going on too long, and this poll is kind of borderline trolling. The only reason that limb destruction never really made it well in the other MW games is hardware/software restrictions.
now, i can't understand the logic behind any other choice in the poll other than what the rules say would happen... destruction of the torso means you lose the limb(falls off), and damage transfers to the CT. total warfare pretty much tells you that the terms destruction/destroyed are pretty much abstract, and what it means in the game is something is no longer usable. BEFORE anybody gets all huffy about "this isnt BT, its MW!!" recall that the BTU is the underlying rule system for MW, and if it doesnt follow it to some respectable level (remember, abstract is a key word here), it is not mechwarrior, but "WalkingTankWarrior".
Wow never expected someone to call this poll as trolling.
Nowhere in my poll do I have a contrived forced answer; heck I even left a response as other.
Secondly, I did not even state my opinion in my original post.
So after 4 pages these are my thoughts.
I don't think you should lose weapons in the arms if the adjacent torso is destroyed.
1. The whole idea of losing the arm to a torso loss gives another reason for not mounting weapons in the arms where in my opinion I think they should belong.
Arms were severly punished in MW2 and MW3; you could lose a arm just by walking into a building in MW2. In MW3, it was easier to lose your arm than losing weapons in the torso
In both games you saw placing ALL weapons in the torso and NO weapons in the arms because of the fragility of the arms. If you look at BattleTech mechs, you don't see many mechs that mount weapons ONLY in the torso; in fact (especially with Clan Mechs) you find that most have their primary weapons in the arms.
Again, losing the arm because the torso gets destroyed discourages mounting arm weapons.
2. I agree that "destroyed" may have been too broad term to be used in the post. Perhaps a better word would be the side torso being disabled.
3. I imagine that the BattleMech frame is similar where a skeleton connects the legs to the torso and the arms to the torso. Although you may remove all the armor and most of the critical sections from a torso section, the skeleton of the BattleMech remains intact; the skeleton being far too small to accurately shoot off in normal gameplay (unless you have a hatchet to chop it off)
4. I think the question is similar to legging in which MW2 and MW3 stuck to TT rules.
In MW2 and MW3, legging was encouraged because in MW2 you were essential disable and useless; in MW3 your Mech was destroyed when legged. This made gameplay unfun when either of these things happened to the victim.
And for the sake of gameplay in MW4, legging only made the leg disable and not destroyed; it made legging a valid tactic and did not completely take you out of the game.
5. As mentioned before, some want reasons for aiming for arms (and not making them useless); making the torso get the 2 for 1 deal and hence reducing the game into 2 less hit-boxes to aim for. I do not know what the roll-table for TT is (ATM) but aiming for the center of a mech is much much easier than aiming for the arms.
The implications may seem reasonable in BT TT but in MW2 and MW3, IMO was really flaw that was detrimental to gameplay.