232 replies to this topic

[Destin Foroda]

MaddMaxx, on 17 February 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

If they use a mostly Stock/Variant Mech setup, the whole whittle down a Mech gets pushed aside as if 1 section goes, you auto lose another. This 2 for 1 sale will make Mechs weak and fragile and have but 2 real target areas. Round Filed. (imho)

Good thing our weaponry won't be half as accurate as we're used to, and since we might only get one life a match I think fragility might be a thing of the past. Besides, there was only ever one mechwarrior game that ever played hit locations like you're suggesting. The other 3, plus the battletech games, plus the mechcommander games, did just fine in the fun and success department without giving people arms that worked just fine when half the body was missing.

[Yeach]

MaddMaxx, on 17 February 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Everyone can use whatever BT/TT/Human analogies and or references they want. In the end if it detracts from the FUN, it needs to get Round Filed. (imho)

Well I am going to use another Human analogy kindof and I blame it on you for not liking my post which quoted your post about more hit-boxes.

Lets use the human analogy again.
If the gut is part of your torso (left, right doesnt matter);
If you keep shooting at the same spot; piercing the skin (armor); destroying the intestines are you any closer in chopping off the arm of the adjacent torso of the person?

Thats why I do not agree with TT rules of transferring damage from one critical to the next; you should be rolling for the critical and not getting a "roll again" if you hit a destroyed critical IMO.

[MaddMaxx]

Yeach, on 17 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Well I am going to use another Human analogy kindof and I blame it on you for not liking my post which quoted your post about more hit-boxes.

Lets use the human analogy again.
If the gut is part of your torso (left, right doesnt matter);
If you keep shooting at the same spot; piercing the skin (armor); destroying the intestines are you any closer in chopping off the arm of the adjacent torso of the person?

Thats why I do not agree with TT rules of transferring damage from one critical to the next; you should be rolling for the critical and not getting a "roll again" if you hit a destroyed critical IMO.

I will take that blame and throw in an apology for my lapse.

[Pht]

Karr285, on 16 February 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Is it all possible since we are gaining further advances in game tech and ability to possibly move past the traditional LT/CT/RT to more hitboxes? I mean really could we add even a few ex
LT/LS/CT/RS/RT as even a basic? and possibly even more? upper leg/lower leg?

They could, but I can't for the life of me see what good it would do. The criticals/weight/penetrating damage system already allows for the ability to resolve damage taken in a manner that allows even the "golden bb" effect.

Yeach, on 17 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Well I am going to use another Human analogy kindof and I blame it on you for not liking my post which quoted your post about more hit-boxes.

Lets use the human analogy again.
If the gut is part of your torso (left, right doesnt matter);
If you keep shooting at the same spot; piercing the skin (armor); destroying the intestines are you any closer in chopping off the arm of the adjacent torso of the person?

Thats why I do not agree with TT rules of transferring damage from one critical to the next; you should be rolling for the critical and not getting a "roll again" if you hit a destroyed critical IMO.

Um, the penetrating("critical") hits transfers the damage because the weapons have spent their damage into the chassis already; internal damage resolution comes after you've already hit your target with all the damage - the damage isn't simply "wasted."

In game terms, you aimed for the side torso, blasted a hole, and ... "twisted the knife around" to hit several things.

[Yeach]

Pht, on 19 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

They could, but I can't for the life of me see what good it would do. The criticals/weight/penetrating damage system already allows for the ability to resolve damage taken in a manner that allows even the "golden bb" effect.




Um, the penetrating("critical") hits transfers the damage because the weapons have spent their damage into the chassis already; internal damage resolution comes after you've already hit your target with all the damage - the damage isn't simply "wasted."

In game terms, you aimed for the side torso, blasted a hole, and ... "twisted the knife around" to hit several things.

And why can't the damage be already "wasted" if you are hitting on the same destroyed section;
The was an analogy before of the destuction of a destroyed car chassis; if you keep attacking the at part its not going to get more destroyed and it definitely doesn't transfer to another part of the car.

"So you "twisted the knife around" to hit several things"s till doesnt explain why the arm has to be blown off or be detached.

[Karr285]

Pht, on 19 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

They could, but I can't for the life of me see what good it would do. The criticals/weight/penetrating damage system already allows for the ability to resolve damage taken in a manner that allows even the "golden bb" effect.

It would resolve at least 1 thing, If you blew off somebody's (L or R) shoulder for example at least then you can put a definite yes his arm is gone (or other shoulder mounted gear) but the remainder of the torso is still viable ei the engines/ammo are still intact, and I cant see a good reason to not make the game more realistic and adds a bit more of a challenge to the game.

[Yeach]

Just thought of this.
And on the topic of criticals;
How come each component / critical can only take 1-hit before its destroyed (which made crtical seeking weapons so good in TT)?
Should an actuator or shoulder mount be able to take more than 1-damage before being destroyed?
I would think that actuator were stronger than that.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Yeach, on 19 February 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Should an actuator or shoulder mount be able to take more than 1-damage before being destroyed?
I would think that actuator were stronger than that.

I think a "critical hit" on an actuator represents a hit on an unarmored or otherwise susceptible location, resulting in significant mechanical damage. Perhaps a big piece of myomer gets severed, or a hinge is dented so badly it can't swing anymore.

Impacts on an armored portion of a joint would just result in armor damage for that limb (assuming you still have armor left).

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 February 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[Insidious Johnson]

Prosperity Park, on 19 February 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think a "critical hit" on an actuator represents a hit on an unarmored or otherwise susceptible location, resulting in significant mechanical damage. Perhaps a big piece of myomer gets severed, or a hinge is dented so badly it can't swing anymore.

Impacts on an armored portion of a joint would just result in armor damage for that limb (assuming you still have armor left).

Ya know, that brings up an interesting thought. Myomer strands would pretty much be under....tons of pressure and pulled very taut. Ever try to shoot a rubber band and let go of the wrong end? I'd love to crit a mech and watch it get beaten to death by its own myomer. Those cables would have to be pulled tighter than bridge cables. That is ONE mechanic never seen in BT video games i'd love to see.

[Fluffinator]

Insidious Johnson, on 19 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Ya know, that brings up an interesting thought. Myomer strands would pretty much be under....tons of pressure and pulled very taut. Ever try to shoot a rubber band and let go of the wrong end? I'd love to crit a mech and watch it get beaten to death by its own myomer. Those cables would have to be pulled tighter than bridge cables. That is ONE mechanic never seen in BT video games i'd love to see.

Sadly I thought you were going the other way with this...thought you ment when one of those cables broke it flung out and threw parts at what shot you

[TheRulesLawyer]

Even if your arm is still attached it means that all the ammo feed mechanisms, power, trigger wires, etc, etc have been destroyed. IE the arm may be perfectly functional, but there is no way the mechwarrior is still in control of what it is doing. Arm is functionally destroyed.

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 February 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Even if your arm is still attached it means that all the ammo feed mechanisms, power, trigger wires, etc, etc have been destroyed. IE the arm may be perfectly functional, but there is no way the mechwarrior is still in control of what it is doing. Arm is functionally destroyed.

Despite that sounding like a definitive statement based on fact, it is well known that many Mechs somehow get ammo from point A to the weapon that uses it through what could only be described as impossible traverses/routes. Sorry.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 February 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

MaddMaxx, on 20 February 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Despite that sounding like a definitive statement based on fact, it is well known that many Mechs somehow get ammo from point A to the weapon that uses it through what could only be described as impossible traverses/routes. Sorry.

So now its teleporting ammo? In any case that doesn't resolve the fact that any control mechanisms going to the arm would be non functional. Aside from being what is supposed to happen, any reasonable assessment of the situation has the arm non-functional on torso destruction. Anything else is rationalization.

[Zervziel]

No amount of analogies is going to make only having to target one location of a mech to takeout almost half it's firepower a good idea.

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 February 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

So now its teleporting ammo? In any case that doesn't resolve the fact that any control mechanisms going to the arm would be non functional. Aside from being what is supposed to happen, any reasonable assessment of the situation has the arm non-functional on torso destruction. Anything else is rationalization.

Some one must have edited out the word Teleport in my post? I do not remember adding it. Your rationalization is no more convincing than mine. Moving ammo (missiles) from the right Leg to the Left arm (somehow) seems rational to you? Yet is is doable under the Rules of BT/TT. Is it not?

As such, assuming the arm is useless with a torso out could be seen in that same light, whether seen as rational or otherwise.

P.S. I think Zervziel stated it quite succinctly actually.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 February 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Zervziel, on 20 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

No amount of analogies is going to make only having to target one location of a mech to takeout almost half it's firepower a good idea.

Meh. Its the price you pay for the additional flexibility of having arm mounted weapons. Big arc or more protection. You choose.

MaddMaxx, on 20 February 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Some one must have edited out the word Teleport in my post? I do not remember adding it. Your rationalization is no more convincing than mine. Moving ammo (missiles) from the right Leg to the Left arm (somehow) seems rational to you? Yet is is doable under the Rules of BT/TT. Is it not?

As such, assuming the arm is useless with a torso out could be seen in that same light, whether seen as rational or otherwise.

P.S. I think Zervziel stated it quite succinctly actually.

Moving ammo around and the size of ammo in battletech in general is implausible. However you're moving from implausible to impossible in addition to throwing out a big chunk of how hits work. I suppose you could occasionally have a super gimpy arm on a torso with its internal structure destroyed. However as I said, there is a big difference between something still being attached and working well enough to worth bothering about in the rules.

I understand some people's concern about people attacking torsos to get rid of the arm weapons, but that's only really an issue if you give them overly accurate weapons. That's the cause of the issue here and a whole host of other problems. Solve that and mechs work like they should without wholesale changes.

[MaddMaxx]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 February 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Meh. Its the price you pay for the additional flexibility of having arm mounted weapons. Big arc or more protection. You choose.



Moving ammo around and the size of ammo in battletech in general is implausible. However you're moving from implausible to impossible in addition to throwing out a big chunk of how hits work. I suppose you could occasionally have a super gimpy arm on a torso with its internal structure destroyed. However as I said, there is a big difference between something still being attached and working well enough to worth bothering about in the rules.

I understand some people's concern about people attacking torsos to get rid of the arm weapons, but that's only really an issue if you give them overly accurate weapons. That's the cause of the issue here and a whole host of other problems. Solve that and mechs work like they should without wholesale changes.

Does a Catapult lose its missile pod with the loss of an arm? Would you say the Pods represent the arms on the known MWO Catapult design?

Which would you strip, if allowed, to protect the Torso sections. Arms(Pods)or Legs or one Torso to hopefully save the other?

With 10T of armor a Cat can distribute some 160pt across 11 locations. How best to save those most valuable Pods when a Torso maxes @30pts and an even distribution places 17pts by default?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 February 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Zervziel, on 20 February 2012 - 11:00 AM, said:

No amount of analogies is going to make only having to target one location of a mech to takeout almost half it's firepower a good idea.

Tongue> cd \cheek
You're right, because you already have the ability to target single body parts that remove 100% of a Mech's firepower (front-center, rear, cockpit). That being the case, it's not a good idea to shoot out their side torso and remove 50% of their firepower; you should try and core them to take out 100% of their firepower.


Zervziel, I agree with you completely. Arms shoul fail when you lose a side-torso, but that doesn't matter because you should aim for the center and not off to the side.
Tongue> cd \

Edited by Prosperity Park, 20 February 2012 - 01:49 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

MaddMaxx, on 20 February 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Despite that sounding like a definitive statement based on fact, it is well known that many Mechs somehow get ammo from point A to the weapon that uses it through what could only be described as impossible traverses/routes. Sorry.

Despite that sounding like a fact, ever hear of someone losing their clavicle and scapula in a tragic accident and still having their arm mysteriously float around next to their ravaged torso, performing everyday tasks without any impairment?

Does that mean that even if my 'mech gets cored I still get to control all the weapons that were in it, and they can fly around the battlefield and strafe anything I want?

And I don't have to actually waste tonnage on ammo or CASE, I can just "teleport" unlimited ammo from my 'mech bay back on Outreach?

And never have to worry about an internal ammo explosion, and not needing an intact engine to fight, I can alpha all I want and never worry about the overheating?

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 February 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

I understand some people's concern about people attacking torsos to get rid of the arm weapons, but that's only really an issue if you give them overly accurate weapons. That's the cause of the issue here and a whole host of other problems. Solve that and mechs work like they should without wholesale changes.

I don't see a cause for concern unless people are hoping to strip all the armor off any part of their 'mech that doesn't contain a weapon in order to free up weight. Completely destroying a side torso is going to take 30-40 points of damage even on a medium 'mech, 40-50 on a heavy, etc. in order to try to get the "2-fer" of disabling the arm as well? In either case you might as well just crit the engine out of the CT anyway, and finish them off with that same amount of damage.

But I agree, without silly hitscan targetting, I don't see this really having a chance of becoming an issue.

[ArchLurker Chad]

I'd like to see the arm go, or at least suffer from the loss of torso. It needs to be balanced so there is no obvious choice between gunning for the arm or torso.
If the arm is lost then the torso would have more armour than if not to compensate.