232 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Solis Obscuri, on 20 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

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?

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.

Again with the human analogies? Since when is a BattleMech human at all. Your not reading the Posts. The Catapult is a Heavy Mech and has 10T Stock armor (160pts) with a Torso section that can hold up to a max. of 30pts (2nd edition 3025 rules)

Follow the link below and build a Catapult. You have 10T of armor to use as you see fit. Put 30 pts. on both torso's and see what's left. You may be surprised.

Mech.lab

[William Petersen]

I didn't realize in MW4 you didn't lose your arm when the side torso got blown off. That's defiantly nonsensical. Lost your side torso, lose that torso's arm. It's really the only thing that makes sense. You blow away a third of the torso, but the arm that attaches to that third is still functional, and not completely missing? Madness.

[MaddMaxx]

William Petersen, on 21 February 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

I didn't realize in MW4 you didn't lose your arm when the side torso got blown off. That's defiantly nonsensical. Lost your side torso, lose that torso's arm. It's really the only thing that makes sense. You blow away a third of the torso, but the arm that attaches to that third is still functional, and not completely missing? Madness.

It is a Video Game about walking Tanks. That is also very much nonsensical but no one, yourself included, seems to mind that. Why is that exactly?

"Fun" and "making sense" have no place together because one always kills the other totally. How many games do things that really don't make sense but are FUN because of it?

Pretty much ALL OF THEM...

Take reality out to Lunch, or out to Dinner, but not to a Video game, please...

[Solis Obscuri]

MaddMaxx, on 21 February 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

Again with the human analogies? Since when is a BattleMech human at all. Your not reading the Posts. The Catapult is a Heavy Mech and has 10T Stock armor (160pts) with a Torso section that can hold up to a max. of 30pts (2nd edition 3025 rules) Follow the link below and build a Catapult. You have 10T of armor to use as you see fit. Put 30 pts. on both torso's and see what's left. You may be surprised. Mech.lab

I'm not sure what analogy you'd expect besides human anatomy, since the musculoskeletal design and limb articulation of a 'mech's arm is derived from the human arm. If you prefer some thing mechanical, I could say "ever hear of a construction crane losing the support for the lower boom foot due to a catastrophic structural failure and still having the boom mysteriously float around next to the damaged crane, lifting heavy loads without any impairment?"

As for the Catapult, it's a fire support 'mech, and it's been designed to sacrifice armor coverage for improved mobility (jump jets) and weapons capacity. It isn't designed to hold up to concentrated fire for any extended period of time. Expecting the weapons systems to remain fully operational while the chassis suffers critical damage is unreasonable. Either drop some systems for better armor coverage, or try to avoid direct fire.

[Pht]

Yeach, on 19 February 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

And why can't the damage be already "wasted" if you are hitting on the same destroyed section;

... I wasn't saying that the damage can't be wasted if it's hitting something that's already been shot off.

If you've already determined that you hit your target mech, and you than determine that the shot goes to a truly destroyed section (all external armor, internal structure and equipment shot off) ... than effectively you've hit the next section over (you already determined that you've hit your target 'mech).

[Yeach]

Pht, on 22 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

... I wasn't saying that the damage can't be wasted if it's hitting something that's already been shot off.

If you've already determined that you hit your target mech, and you than determine that the shot goes to a truly destroyed section (all external armor, internal structure and equipment shot off) ... than effectively you've hit the next section over (you already determined that you've hit your target 'mech).

That sounds too much like dice rolling to me.... if you already determined that you hit a target mech.. if you determine that your shot goes off a truly destroyed section...

effectively you've hit an open section that previously had somethng to hit.... but since the section is missing, you missed.

[Pht]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

That sounds too much like dice rolling to me.... if you already determined that you hit a target mech.. if you determine that your shot goes off a truly destroyed section...

effectively you've hit an open section that previously had somethng to hit.... but since the section is missing, you missed.

... dice rolling? ... dude, I was just explaining how the TT system handles hit/miss and damage resolution. Nothing more.

[Zervziel]

I'm starting to think people don't want the ability for pilots to converge their weapons at their aiming at because they want things like this in game. Basically counting on dice roles to not get completely gimped. I honestly don't care about how the arm should be set up and ammo linkages.

If my torso gets taken out, then it's gone and so are whatever weapons it had in it as well as ammo. Heck if you forgot case, you won't be worrying about whether or not your mech's arm not falling to the ground or being disabled if your AC or Missile ammo is about to cook off.

Also I'm starting to think the people pushing for this are part of a conspiracy and actually will pilot mechs with no arms.

[MaddMaxx]

Solis Obscuri, on 21 February 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure what analogy you'd expect besides human anatomy, since the musculoskeletal design and limb articulation of a 'mech's arm is derived from the human arm. If you prefer some thing mechanical, I could say "ever hear of a construction crane losing the support for the lower boom foot due to a catastrophic structural failure and still having the boom mysteriously float around next to the damaged crane, lifting heavy loads without any impairment?"

As for the Catapult, it's a fire support 'mech, and it's been designed to sacrifice armor coverage for improved mobility (jump jets) and weapons capacity. It isn't designed to hold up to concentrated fire for any extended period of time. Expecting the weapons systems to remain fully operational while the chassis suffers critical damage is unreasonable. Either drop some systems for better armor coverage, or try to avoid direct fire.

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)

[3Xtr3m3]

MaddMaxx, on 21 February 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

It is a Video Game about walking Tanks. That is also very much nonsensical but no one, yourself included, seems to mind that. Why is that exactly?

"Fun" and "making sense" have no place together because one always kills the other totally. How many games do things that really don't make sense but are FUN because of it?

Pretty much ALL OF THEM...

Take reality out to Lunch, or out to Dinner, but not to a Video game, please...

I am going to disagree with you here. The history of Battletech is reality based. So for my two cents. Make it reality based fun. The storylines are fictional, the timeline too. But they are not unrealistic expectations of the future. The Tech is reality based expectations. From power to ammo to armour to weapons to modes of travel. And every once in a while that is presented in a fun way.
Mechwarrior = Reality based tech in a fun format. IMO

[TheRulesLawyer]

3Xtr3m3, on 24 February 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

I am going to disagree with you here. The history of Battletech is reality based. So for my two cents. Make it reality based fun. The storylines are fictional, the timeline too. But they are not unrealistic expectations of the future. The Tech is reality based expectations. From power to ammo to armour to weapons to modes of travel. And every once in a while that is presented in a fun way.
Mechwarrior = Reality based tech in a fun format. IMO

Battletech really isn't plausible tech wise. Mechs as shown wouldn't work for a whole host of reasons. Heavy gear is much closer to how I'd really expect a mech type war machine to work.

[LackofCertainty]

Discussing balance before a game is out is a level of speculation relegated to trolls.

"It will be too easy to get a 2fer by blowing up side torsos."
How do you know this? Have you played a demo of the game or anything else that has given you the impression that this will be the case, or are you just making a list of phantom issues.

"TT rules don't fit in an fps where I can hit what I want to 100% of the time."
You have 100% accuracy in every fps you play without using cheats? Then I envy you, sir, because I'm fairly certain that is super-human level talent. Is it possible that the devs will have taken this into account and scaled the damage on parts to fit with their ease of access? Is it possible that common fps conventions of the day will make 100% accuracy impossible? (such as weapon spread/random patterns or hit-scan weapons being replaced by projectile weapons) What are you basing all of these inane speculations? MW2/3/4? Do you know how long ago those games came out, and how much has changed since then?

Silly thread is silly. If I blow up someone's LT or RT I want their arm to hang limply. If I get a massive hit on their LT/RT I want a pretty boom and to see their arm topple to the ground. That is fun to me. If someone destroys my LT/RT I don't expect to use my arm-mounted weapons. I expect to (at best) use the non-functioning arm as a shield for my CT for as long as it lasts. If someone catches my LT with a massive, critical inducing alpha, then they deserve to see a big boom and the wreckage of my arm toppling away. In the meantime I'll be limping toward them, trying to claw/blast their cockpit out with the weapons I have left on my right side.

One rant done, and one to go.


I hate when people use the "It's just a game" argument for why magical BS can happen. Yes, it's a game and part of having fun with a game is it's theme and atmosphere. We are stretching reality with the tech in MW, but not entirely shattering it.

Zombie movie analogy. You have a essentially real world setting, with zombies. All of the characters are acting normally throughout the show, maybe a reality stretching moment or two (Wow that guy shot a zombie off of someone at 200 yards without a scope) but nothing that is completely impossible given the setting. Then the movie ends with the main character pulling out a samurai sword and cutting a building in half. Visually impressive? Yes. Funny? Possibly. But would that movie still have me immersed in it? No, because a person can't cut a building in half with a sword.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 29 February 2012 - 03:26 AM.

[3Xtr3m3]

With all due respect to those above who state that they want LT/RT destruction to include the loss of the same side arm.
My arguement remains: It depends on the mech.
A Dasher is certain to lose its arm, A Commando, maybe. An Atlas, Nova, Catapult, or any well designed spare no expense in its design and manufacture mech.....an emphatic no, you do not lose the arm.

[MaddMaxx]

3Xtr3m3, on 24 February 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

I am going to disagree with you here. The history of Battletech is reality based. So for my two cents. Make it reality based fun. The storylines are fictional, the timeline too. But they are not unrealistic expectations of the future. The Tech is reality based expectations. From power to ammo to armour to weapons to modes of travel. And every once in a while that is presented in a fun way.
Mechwarrior = Reality based tech in a fun format. IMO

No worries. Sadly even if the human race could invent FTL engines, it would also be a requirement to invent a shielding to protect the fragile little peeps they put in those ships. Space travel is inherently deadly to human due to Cosmic radiation, you know, the stuff our atmosphere filters out for us, otherwise we would all live underground, deep underground.

But using ones imagination is a good thing and so we "suspend our disbelief" and just have fun. No harm no foul. Sorry OT again.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 29 February 2012 - 08:17 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I don't think the arm should fall to the ground... that would make repair costs way too expensive!

If you lose a side torso, as in "all the armor is shot out and then it receives additional damage to incapacitate the internal workings," then the arm should fall limp to the side, possibly with a little ragdoll-effect for that limb. This would provide an excellent visual effect and might not be too hard to program.

I think only a physically destroyed arm should result in chuncks of arm falling to the ground.

[MaddMaxx]

Prosperity Park, on 29 February 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

I don't think the arm should fall to the ground... that would make repair costs way too expensive!

If you lose a side torso, as in "all the armor is shot out and then it receives additional damage to incapacitate the internal workings," then the arm should fall limp to the side, possibly with a little ragdoll-effect for that limb. This would provide an excellent visual effect and might not be too hard to program.

I think only a physically destroyed arm should result in chuncks of arm falling to the ground.

There is precedence if required. In the MW2 opening, the MadCat disables the enemy Mechs right arm with MG fire. The pilot never uses it again and even turns his/her Mech to allow the Left arm to be used, twice.

So perhaps just getting a lucky MG bullet into the joint or something could be doable. That would be sweet (although odds would have to be very very slim)

[TheRulesLawyer]

LackofCertainty, on 29 February 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Discussing balance before a game is out is a level of speculation relegated to trolls.

"It will be too easy to get a 2fer by blowing up side torsos."
How do you know this? Have you played a demo of the game or anything else that has given you the impression that this will be the case, or are you just making a list of phantom issues.

Welcome to the forums. You've missed the many months of discussion prior. We pretty much only have speculation on this game, but the devs do interact with this forum and have taken "balance" discussions seriously. We don't know how everything is implemented yet, but there is certainly a point to it.

http://mwomercs.com/...-pretty-please/

Is a great place to get up to speed on the community.

[autogyro]

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.

[Fecal]

Fatalis, on 09 February 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

...then the arm just hangs their limp

This would be great. I'd love to gimp other mechs and watch them flop around with their useless arms.

[AceTimberwolf]

With nothing between the the controls and Arms the Arms should become inoperable. Atleast thats what I think. As long as it makes sense then its fine.