57 replies to this topic

[SquareSphere]

You know what I was thinking about on the whole MWO legging thing?

Add back the knock around feature when things get hit, but take it up a tier

If you hit the arms on an enemy they sway ruining the arm weapon aim (ie arms move), if you hit the torso, same thing but to a lesser effect (ie it's center mass so the knock around isn't as bad). But if you hit the legs, no knock effect. This plays into the fact we now know that arm and torso weapons' aim are independent of each other.

Take one further and allow legs to mount as much armor as a side torso section. This remove the problem of legs being a "better" target than a torso.

This makes it more strategic in shot selection. Sure the legger can take off the leg but if you target his arms, and lets say it's got a lot of weapons mounted in the arms (*cough* clan mechs make heavy use of arm weapon pods), you're going to ruin his strat by knock his arm aim off so only his torso weapons may hit the leg.

In short

• Target arm = arm weapon aim sway when hit with enough force, arms tend to not be able to mount as much armor as a torso.
  
• Target torso = lesser cockpit knock effect, obviously the main way to destroy mech when torso is breached
  
• Target legs = no knock effect, can now mount as much armor as a torso section.

This allows skill based damage mitigation which is essential for heavier mechs. They tend to be out in the open and can't use cover or speed to reduce damage.

[MaddMaxx]

Something to look at during Alpha/Beta Testing. Careful consideration must be paid to weapons and their knock ability versus how much and from where. We don't want any weapon to have the ability to basically prevent return fire after the first salvo lands.

In previous versions some weapons were carried for that sole purpose and when caught under the sights of Pilot proficient in their use, it became very frustrating very quickly.

The AC5 comes to mind. Long range and rapid reload. When engaging an enemy with one and a friend, getting any time to shoot back totally sucked the FUN out of that and any such encounter.

Knock always needs very serious Balancing if allowed in game.

[Mr MEAN]

2 - AC 20's to the chest at point blank range

'Cause thats MEAN

[Pht]

Legging is not a problem. It is a feature.


Mechs have legs, they can be shot. This is not a problem; people only seem to complain about legging because it is effective, and people do what's effective most of the time.

The exact same rational used to show that legging is bad and must be circumvented could be used to say that shooting the CT of a mech is bad and must therefore be circumvented... because shooting the CT repeatedly is effective as well.


Besides which, legging will only be prevalent if we can target them and hit them with regularity.


------


Knock - mechs don't suffer from knock in any manner that affects their battlefield performance, and if they did, the firing mech would have to suffer even more from the recoil effects of firing its weapons. Knock and recoil are not valid factors to be putting in an MW game.

[metro]

Highlander 1, on 13 March 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

WHERE DO YOU SIGN UP FOR beta??????????????????????????????

PER the devs.

Watch the website for the announcement.

When it comes, YOU WILL KNOW!

Welcome to MWO.

[Bouncin]

SquareSphere, on 13 March 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Take one further and allow legs to mount as much armor as a side torso section. This remove the problem of legs being a "better" target than a torso.

Legs have always been able to hold the same amt of armor as side torsos, at least in TT and MW2-3. In fact, legs were better protected because they did not need to split the armor protection between front an rear, the way the side (and center) torsos did. Not sure about MW4, but I think I remember the max on legs being higher than the side torsos (as they automatically took some protection and applied it to the rear). Have fun, and we'll see you in-game...eventually .

[Thomas Hogarth]

Pht, on 13 March 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

Legging is not a problem. It is a feature.


Mechs have legs, they can be shot. This is not a problem; people only seem to complain about legging because it is effective, and people do what's effective most of the time.

The exact same rational used to show that legging is bad and must be circumvented could be used to say that shooting the CT of a mech is bad and must therefore be circumvented... because shooting the CT repeatedly is effective as well.


Besides which, legging will only be prevalent if we can target them and hit them with regularity.


------


Knock - mechs don't suffer from knock in any manner that affects their battlefield performance, and if they did, the firing mech would have to suffer even more from the recoil effects of firing its weapons. Knock and recoil are not valid factors to be putting in an MW game.

On legging, I cautiously agree. The problem with legging doesn't reside with legging, but rather the frailty of the HTAL layout of armor borrowed from TT when combined with fire with a degree of accuracy not envisioned when the HTAL layout was created. With the current setup of MWO, it looks like this has been moderately negated, but we will see.

On knock/recoil, I couldn't disagree less. Modern tanks have issues with knock when struck by shells an order of magnitude less powerful than the weapons in BT. Leaving modern-day comparisons out of it and looking at the issue from a strictly game viewpoint, it would be incredibly immersion breaking to not have large weapons knock you about a bit. It factors into accuracy-ruining mechanic, and it just feels right.
About the only defensible position to take in reguards to a knockless MWO would be to look at the TT game, where there are no accuracy modifiers for being hit. However, there is a piloting modifier if you take a relatively low amount of damage(20pts) wherein you might fall. I claim that this was easier to play out on TT, but if that degree of detail was playable on tabletop, they would have included it. This degree of detail is easily possible in MWO, and therefore should be included.

[xMatchstickx]

Weapons like the AC/5 are still feasible, even with the high knock around advantage because this is not going to be combat in a bubble. The AC/5 doesn't do much damage, and while he's plugging you, keeping you from bringing that AC/20 or LL to bear, your buddy is installing a new ventilation system in the side of his 'mech with a flank.

[Jehan]

MW4 already managed to find a good enough solution for the legging problems.

Legs were as armored as central torsos, or more (so no tactical weakness), and completely destroying a leg "only" reduced mech's movement to a crawl, and disabled backwards speed. Furthermore, you had to inflict additional damage equivalent to the other leg's internal structure to finally destroy the mech completely.

You suggestion is also good, but it still doesn't prevent the 'destroy the weakest part' race. Opponents will always target:

A ) Your most prominent location.
B ) Your weakest location.

The problem with the legging technique in previous mechwarrior games was that, following cannon, the leg could have a maximum armor value equal to the lateral torsos, and center torsos always were the better armored part of a mech. However, destroying a single leg also destroyed the entire mech.

Thus, shooting to the legs was the quickest way to destroy an enemy mech. (Because the Central torso was better armored, and because destroying a lateral torso was not enough to destroy the mech while destroying a leg was).

MW4 solved the legging problem pretty decently. Legging was still a viable tactic, but not the quickest way of destroying an enemy. Unfortunately, they still followed canon regarding the torso armors, and this created in several mechs (one of the biggest examples being the Thanatos) severe problems of under-performance, since their most prominent and easier to target locations were also the lesser armored ones.

MWO should follow a similar solution for the 'legging' problem, and at the same time, they should ensure that the easier-to-hit and most prominent parts of a mech are also the better armored ones. Following the example, the side torsos of the Thanatos should have equal (or better) armor than the Central Torso, since the majority of shots will land there. The Hunchback's torso that holds the AC/20 should similarly have better armor than the other lateral torso, since most shots will also land there... and so on.

Edited by Jehan, 13 March 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Wyzak]

make it hard to aim so people go for center of mass shots like in real life - your legs are causing sway as you move, you get jostled by enemy fire, etc.

[Siilk]

I like the OP idea. Firstly, it makes sense as hitting some parts of a mech(arms) would result in more knockback than hitting others(center torso). No knockback for legs is also logical as legs are close to the point of contact with a ground and, thus, naturally stable. As for "legging is good", the whole point in countering legging is to stop it from being one and only viable tactic to quickly dispatch any mech regardless of the situation. And not the MW4-style, as it is completely artificial. Legs should be severable but legless mech should still be able to orient itself (semi)upwards to some extent and keep fighting, at least as a "turret". Hell, maybe even move itself at a crawl speed with it's arms.

So yes, legging should be in the game but it has to be as appealing as attacking any other part of the mech, not the best possible choice. In the same way, attacking CT shouldn't always be first priority either. What's the point in having a lot of hitzones if only CT or legs are always targeted. There should be a diversity in attack priorities, each of them with it's own pros and cons. Attacking arms should yield the most knockback and let you strip your enemy from it's arm-mounted weapons, legging could be a nice way to immobilize a mech but almost no knockback would leave your enemy free to return fire with great accuracy. CT is a sure way to kill and the knockback would still be there but this part would have lots of armour to chew through and all the weapons and mobility as well as most subsystems of your target would be undamaged. In other words, each option would be as appealing as other so it would be a pilot's decision which one to choose. It all would depend on his style of play and combat situation.

[MaddMaxx]

Phell, on 13 March 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Weapons like the AC/5 are still feasible, even with the high knock around advantage because this is not going to be combat in a bubble. The AC/5 doesn't do much damage, and while he's plugging you, keeping you from bringing that AC/20 or LL to bear, your buddy is installing a new ventilation system in the side of his 'mech with a flank.

And the guy knocking you about also has a buddy and we are back to square one. As the AC5 knocks you, the other weapons it carries can apply the damage they desire. Only ammo issues, or literally running away, will get you out from under the knock guns affect and that leaves your buddy as the next target for the ac5 carrier. A vicious circle really.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

But knock is one of the pro's for AC's to balance out that extra weight and limited ammo. Especially noe lasers have extended range with reducing damage.
As for recoil it shouldn't be a factor as that is what some of that weight of AC's is used for, recoil supressing mechanism's along with the ammo feed.
It also comes down to recycle times as well. I can't see an individual mech mounting enough weapons to totally stop someone firing in between rounds, not as standard.

[mr Zonke]

MaddMaxx, on 13 March 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

And the guy knocking you about also has a buddy and we are back to square one. As the AC5 knocks you, the other weapons it carries can apply the damage they desire. Only ammo issues, or literally running away, will get you out from under the knock guns affect and that leaves your buddy as the next target for the ac5 carrier. A vicious circle really.

Maybe the knocking should be worse the faster you move, would make sense that a mech standing still is much more stable. Facing the mech that's causing the knocking could also reduce the effect abit perhaps...
Just some ideas, but I definetly think ballistic (and missile) weapons should have knocking effects varying by size and type...

Edited by mr Zonke, 13 March 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Jehan, on 13 March 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

MW4 already managed to find a good enough solution for the legging problems.

Legs were as armored as central torsos, or more (so no tactical weakness), and completely destroying a leg "only" reduced mech's movement to a crawl, and disabled backwards speed. Furthermore, you had to inflict additional damage equivalent to the other leg's internal structure to finally destroy the mech completely.

You suggestion is also good, but it still doesn't prevent the 'destroy the weakest part' race. Opponents will always target:

A ) Your most prominent location.
B ) Your weakest location.

The problem with the legging technique in previous mechwarrior games was that, following cannon, the leg could have a maximum armor value equal to the lateral torsos, and center torsos always were the better armored part of a mech. However, destroying a single leg also destroyed the entire mech.

Thus, shooting to the legs was the quickest way to destroy an enemy mech. (Because the Central torso was better armored, and because destroying a lateral torso was not enough to destroy the mech while destroying a leg was).

MW4 solved the legging problem pretty decently. Legging was still a viable tactic, but not the quickest way of destroying an enemy. Unfortunately, they still followed canon regarding the torso armors, and this created in several mechs (one of the biggest examples being the Thanatos) severe problems of under-performance, since their most prominent and easier to target locations were also the lesser armored ones.

MWO should follow a similar solution for the 'legging' problem, and at the same time, they should ensure that the easier-to-hit and most prominent parts of a mech are also the better armored ones. Following the example, the side torsos of the Thanatos should have equal (or better) armor than the Central Torso, since the majority of shots will land there. The Hunchback's torso that holds the AC/20 should similarly have better armor than the other lateral torso, since most shots will also land there... and so on.

The legs were always the (potentially) second and third most heavily-armored sections, after the front section of the center-torso.
The side-torsos could carry an overall equal amount of armor, but had to split it between front and rear, so each surface of a side-torso could be less well-armored than the leg could be.

One part of the prominence of aiming for the legs came from people not placing sufficient armor on them - the protection of the legs was often sacrificed in favor of carrying a larger number of larger weapons at much-higher-than-average-for-the-weight-class speeds.
And other people, knowing this to be the common practice, aimed for the weakly-armored legs rather than the arms or torsos that people did put armor on... to protect their weapons.

IMO, the obvious solution to "the legging issue" would be for people to properly armor their BattleMechs' legs in the first place... though, that would mean sacrificing the ridiculous-for-its-weight speed or the ridiculous alpha-strike capability.

[M0rpHeu5]

I never saw legging as a problem. Shoot whichever part of the mech your opponent got less armor. If someone has low armor legs he is asking to be legged.

[MaddMaxx]

Legging was made as bad as many remember as much due to the Full Mech Lab abilities of those games. When you hit Heavy weight classes and Mega pinpoint damage output took legs out with 2-3 shots. Cripple with the first, kill with the next 1-2. Hopefully the MWO weapons tracking influence will help alleviate some of that.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 March 2012 - 01:14 PM.

[Gunslinger2]

I tend to agree with Strum here, i'm still playing Merc's online and many players strip the armor off the legs for the extra tonnage, then they get pissed when you shoot the leg off of them.

Simply put, if i alpha your CT and get zip for damage, my next shot is going for the leg, because more than likely you got tissue paper for armor there.

Guns

[Sir Crazy]

I really like Jehan's idea about mechs having more armor in the places that are most likely to get hit.

Generally the spots that get hit the most are the ones that are the biggest, which means there should be more room for more/thicker armor in those spots. In MW4 the Fafnir should have had a lot more armor on it's torsos then it's center because of how big they were but they didn't. Fafnirs were easy targets because of this. The Atlas is another example: I would strip the torso armor because no one would hit them and put that extra armor on the massive arms and center which got hit all the time. Given how big the arms were on the Atlas they should have been able to hold a lot of armor.

I also have to agree with Strum Wealh. I never had a problem with getting legged because I always had full leg armor. The people who got legged most often were those who stripped the leg armor for more weapons or speed. [/color]

Edited by Sir Crazy, 13 March 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[Zakatak]

Why don't we just make everything Hovermechs?

Idiots.