129 replies to this topic

[Scanlon]

Curon Hifor, on 29 March 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Well, this is the chance for MWO to be different than those other games, then. As Grithis mentioned, it's not going to devolve into a Rock 'em, Sock 'em robots match. Besides, how would melee ruin realism anyway? Police have to use hand-to-hand combat on occasion, as do the military. If melee combat was completely useless on the battlefield, why would they teach us how to fight with our fists and feet in Basic?

Besides. We can't argue realism here on a BattleTech/MechWarrior board. Its giant, fighting robots. These things would never be viable in a real-world setting, nor could they really work in a real-world setting. That's like trying to argue realism in Dungeons and Dragons, where Magic exists.

Because it's a simulator. Its about immersion. Which means if I cant believe my surroundings then im not immersed. Ergo the game has failed it's goal.

[Rear Admiral]

I honestly think alot of the apprehension toward melee in BT and MW games comes from the fact that people think its gonna be like a gundam style, martial art contest.

What people often forget is that when making melee attacks in BT, you are forced to give up some other attack. For instance, in order to punch a target with an arm, you must have not fired any of the weapons in that arm during the turn. a melee attack isnt a perfectly choreographed expert martial arts strike, its a ponderous, powerful blow that is equal parts clumsiness and equal parts timing/skill.

Using the example of the Warhammer, in order to punch a mech, you would have had to NOT fire the ppc on the arm you intend to punch with. If you've fired that weapon, guess what? No punch for you! This is a built in balancer to make up for the power of a punch and the increased chance to hit the enemies head. Whats better, 10pts of damage +10 heat or 7 pts of damage to a mechs upper torso? You make the call...

One more thought: I understand that with things like art and maybe a few game systems that dont translate well from TT to the virtual world, some redesign/restructuring is in order. But honestly, BT has had melee in it as one of its fundamental components from the very beginning. The TT game has an entire phase in a round devoted entirely to melee attacks. Why this need to redesign the wheel when it comes to melee? Its been an accepted, some may say crucial, part of the game for practically 3 decades.

[Paladin1]

Scanlon, on 29 March 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Because it's a simulator. Its about immersion. Which means if I cant believe my surroundings then im not immersed. Ergo the game has failed it's goal.

Then by definition, earlier MW games have failed in their goal of immersion because they have not included melee combat, which is part of the immersion into the Battletech Universe as a whole, your thoughts on the subject aside.

Seriously, melee in the Battletech Universe isn't `Mech scale Kung-Fu so getting the idea of Japanese style mecha games out of your head will go a long way towards fixing the immersion problem.

[Curon Hifor]

Scanlon, on 29 March 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Because it's a simulator. Its about immersion. Which means if I cant believe my surroundings then im not immersed. Ergo the game has failed it's goal.

And being unable to punch with the arms that my 'Mech has (which were clearly designed to punch things) ruins immersion? If we're supposed to be in a MechWarrior simulator, why not have melee combat in there since it's been used in the books, the tabletop, etc? Just what exactly are the developers trying to simulate? BattleTech or someone else's version of BattleTech (ie the other MechWarrior games). You're either simulating the game of BattleTech as it is presented in the books and the TableTop game, or you're trying to simulate someone else's vision of what MechWarrior is supposed to be.

[Scanlon]

Melee in and of itself does not ruin immersion, camp does.

Look at these and tell me the feeling they convey to you


http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=IDFRIR


http://www.sarna.net.../DragonKick.jpg

[HepatitisTK]

I certainly hope that no one is hinting at the thought that a melee system in the game... included or excluded... would ruin the game for them. We've waited how long for a new Mechwarrior game? After all this time of waiting I would hope that such a thing wouldn't be a deterrent from playing for anyone.

While I'm here I might as well state my own opinion. I'd rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it however if its not in... then i'll just make do without. I'll still have a ball playing regardless. I am kind of surprised this same sentiment hasn't been expressed TBH.

[Hao Yu]

Besides the fact that there's no longer an arm to guard my torso with from flanking attacks on that side, a gaping hole in the side of your mech is a vulnerability in other aspects. On worlds with environmental hazards, snow, rain, dust or sand can enter your mech and damage the internals through corrosion or may even cause short circuits and overloaded electronics. Ammo feed mechanisms can jam. Plus, having both arms is part of your mech's balance and was part of the structural design. An arm that's been missing for multiple encounters will strain your mech's leg myomers, leg joints, and even the gyro has to work extra-hard to compensate. This may sound like fluff at first, but who knows how far the game developers will take "fluff elements" for realism?

[Paladin1]

Scanlon, on 29 March 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Melee in and of itself does not ruin immersion, camp does.

Look at these and tell me the feeling they convey to you


http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=IDFRIR


http://www.sarna.net.../DragonKick.jpg

Honestly Scanlon, I'm probably not the one to ask this question because I associate the top link with Natasha Kerensky more than anything else. For me, it's knowing who's piloting that WHM that makes the impression, not the machine itself.

As for the bottom link, I don't much care for it due to the fact that it shows a Dragon performing an intentional illegal DFA from a higher elevation without the aid of jump jets. You can't repeat this in the TT game and you shouldn't be able to repeat it in MWO.

As for your basic point though, I agree that I don't want a campy melee system like Gundam, but I do want the Battletech Universe melee form. The two have little to do with each other.

[Rear Admiral]

Scanlon, on 29 March 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Melee in and of itself does not ruin immersion, camp does.

Look at these and tell me the feeling they convey to you


http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=IDFRIR


http://www.sarna.net.../DragonKick.jpg

OK. Good choices for pictures, scanlon. I was going to use the picture floating around out there of the atlas in a boxers pose giving a lifelike left hook to some clan mech to illustrate the same point you just made. Now i dont have find it.

I agree with what you're saying, and I dont really like that picture of the dragon jump kicking some poor sods head off. BUT, that simply is not how it works. First of all, a mech kick can only hit another mechs legs. The legs simply do not rise high enough to allow that kind of action you see in that picture. You could hit a mech with a kick in the upper torso if you are on higher ground than your target, but thats it.

Again, I think many of you need to just get rid of your gundam notions and realize that this is NOT GUNDAM. Melee in BT is not what you think it is. There has been some questionable art that seems to illustrate BT melee combat as extremely over stylized and action oriented. Its not.

And back on topic, if you left your destroyed arm unrepaired, you would be leaving off a major damage sink and any hits taht went to that arm are now automatically applied to your torso. That in and off itself should be enough to discourage any person with even half a brain to not do that, hehe.

BTW, that warhammer pic is sweet!

[Lomack]

StandingCow, on 28 March 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

How complex are the internals gonna be? Are you going to be able to damage enemy gyros for example?

I would imagine that internals are going to be relatively important. If there are no internals then there are no ammo explosions. CASE technology becomes useless.

[RedHairDave]

i do hope mele comes in, but not player controled mele, just when close enough, if you have fists, feet or axe that can, it swings away. lag issues make mele difficult.

i could be wrong, i am ok with that, but mele is just as much a part of battletech as any mech

[Curon Hifor]

Scanlon, on 29 March 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Melee in and of itself does not ruin immersion, camp does.

Look at these and tell me the feeling they convey to you


http://www.bing.com/...t=0&FORM=IDFRIR


http://www.sarna.net.../DragonKick.jpg

The first image is great, obviously rendered by a better artist. The second image represents something that cannot be done on the TableTop and is more for motivational purposes just to get people playing the TableTop game again. You're using these images to skew your argument.

And what is this 'camp' you speak of anyway?

By the way, the image you're lookin' for, Rear Admiral, is this: http://www.4chanpart...29816333462.jpg

This is a more sensational piece depicting how gruesome an Atlas can be in melee. The punching the torso aspect is certainly viable on the tabletop, where the grabbing the guns on the Warhawk, while not really possible in BattleTech, can be more representative of a punch attack that hit the right arm and damaged the PPCs. This is a more viable image to use for the argument, I think.

[Siilk]

Paladin1, on 29 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

I see your problem. This has nothing to do with keeping the game canon or staying within the game's past aesthetics, this has everything to do with YOUR interpretation of how things should be. Sorry, but that's just not going to cut it.

Well, if I liked melee, why should I wanted to be keept out of MWO? I dislike melee for the very reason of it ruining the the atmosphere of a sim. MW is not TT, there are things that wouldn't feel right in the sim, Atlas kicking Awesome in it's shiny metal arse being one of them. So no, I don't think that blindly sticking to canon would do MWO any good. And yeah, you're forget about other people I mentioned, who also didn't wanted melee in MW. You know, MW devs.

Paladin1, on 29 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Also, you point to Gundam, Armored Core and other Japanese-style mecha games as having melee combat but you neglect to mention that those games came AFTER MW2, which is pretty much the Gold Standard when it comes to MW games.

No, I havent. Because some of "other Japanese-style mecha games" are not, Early PS1 Mobile Suit Gundam of Front Mission for example. Oh, by the way, MW3 and MW4 also came after MW2 too(surprise!). Seen any melee there?

Paladin1, on 29 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Your argument is based on your opinion that melee shouldn't be included because it doesn't match the previous game's mood, which was set partially due to technological limitations and partially due to faction limitations. The Clans abhor physical combat, so a game centered on the Clan point of view is, by definition, not going to focus on physical combat.

Tech limitations? MW3(1999) vs AC1(1997), MW4 vs AC2 (both 2000). AC devs wanted melee. MW devs didn't. Simple as that.

Clan-centred? Hardly so. Of all 9 MW games(and that would be MW1, MW2, MW2:GBL, MW2:Mercs, MW3, MW3:PM, MW4, MW4:BK and MW4:Mercs), only 2 (MW2 and MW2:GBL) have Clan warriors as protagonists. All the rest are purely IS based, with Clans posing purely as "big baddies". The most popular and successful ones are both of Mercs' incarnation BTW, both strictly IS-bound.

Mood? The mood of previous MW games was something like "giant war machines destroying each other with high-tech weaponry". Melee would turn in into a slapstick comedy.

Paladin1, on 29 March 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

My argument is based upon the fact that melee should be included because it matches the established canon of the Battletech Universe.

Which one of us is not being consistent here?

Clearly, that would be you. As, again, canonicity is not the only thing that matters. By trying to put something into the game "just because it's canon", without any thought on how would it fit within established game style and gameplay mechanics, you just being zealous. Such state of mind hardly helps building balanced and atmospheric game.

[ZnSeventeen]

Okay, here, lets get a couple things straight.
First, melee ranges. They are literally melee ranged. They are the length of a mech's arm, five meters tops. Even small lasers can fire at ninety meters. Considering you can slam an enemy with Autocannon/20s for 265 meters before melee range, I don't think people will just close to melee range for the fun of punching the other guy. It will be like WWI and charging the machine guns to get into bayonet range.
Light mechs can run at many meters per second, I would calculate it right now but my wife is waiting for me. In any case they can get out of melee range in less than a second.
Melee, if implemented, will be hard, and should be extremely uncommon.
And the dragon kicking someone in the head could happen in the TT, as long as he is on a level 1 ridge.

[Gabriel Amarell]

So, um, lets say you get knocked over, how exactly do you get up, I know, lets shove the PPC barrel in the ground and use that to get up... A nice lump of dirt fouling the barrel wont cause it to explode when your fire it...

Hands and arms without weapons have uses, maybe not combat uses, but they do have uses.
1. Hand to hand combat with or without weapons (Axeman, Hatchetman?) was a part of the original game
2. Weapons that were carried in the hands of mechs are cannonical (Axeman, Hatchetman and many others)
3. Hands allow a mech to do things like pick up ammunition reload pods in the field without the aid of support vehicles (that mattered in the tabletop game)
4. If you truly believe the arms without weapons of any kind are useless, what about the armor they carry, they shield the torso from some of the hits even if they do nothing else.
5. Do a little experiment, go for a jog
6. Now go for a jog with one arm imobilized, it completely screws up your sense of ballance doesnt it, it also makes it much easier to be pushed over for the same reason. It changes your center of gravity, if you dont believe that have a little shoving contest with someone with that same arm imobolized.

Articulated arms with hands offer versatility in and out of combat that many mech designers felt was of sufficient value to warrent retaining so many mechs have fully articulated arms, with "hands." Other designers felt that the utility was not worth the cost and chose to replace articulated arms/hands with weapons. Just because the hands on a design do not serve a function in the simulation titles does not mean that they serve no cannonical function.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

If I'm piloting an assault I want to drop kick the light that got to close into touch. Everyone goes on about punching when the kick was more useful - you could still fire your arm weapons.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I myself am not a fan of melee whatsoever. Having said that, it is also clearly within lore.

If someone tries to get a swing on me, I'll just aim for the weapon, leg and walk away.

<Insert counter argument that said melee user wouldn't allow me to just shoot them>

[Evil Ash]

Think about it with a Monty Python mindset.

A: You're missing a bloody arm.
BK: T'is but a scratch!
(this quoting is terrible.)

[Fetladral]

I'm fine with melee actually i just don't want gigantic fistfights or mechs that never carried melee weapons(though they physically could i.e. mechs with a hand of some kind) to start carrying weapons. the ones that had weapons like the hatchetman and axeman i'm fine with those carrying melee weapons. I'm fine with the otheres being able to use improvised weapons such as a I-beam from a building site or a tree or something just don't want an atlas carrying an axe into battle

Edited by Fetladral, 29 March 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Grithis]

Siilk, on 29 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Clearly, that would be you. As, again, canonicity is not the only thing that matters. By trying to put something into the game "just because it's canon", without any thought on how would it fit within established game style and gameplay mechanics, you just being zealous. Such state of mind hardly helps building balanced and atmospheric game.

And you? So far, you've only put forward the arguement that it wasn't in the other MW games. That, and that you don't like it, but that's hardly a valid argument, is it? If it were, I'd have a few things to say to my congressman. Also, my 9 year old would be driving and never have attended school.

But as for you're first arguement, SO WHAT?! Should Master Chief never have been allowed to dual wield? Should Need for Speed never have included the cops? Should Resident Evil have just stuck to zombies, zombies, and more zombies? Up the ante. Add some flavor. Clone games SUCK!

If you don't like melee, fine. Don't use it. Some of us who like it probably won't find much of an excuse to use it. I, for one, am not going to sacrifice tactics just to sucker punch an Atlas. I want it for the rare occasion that I need it.