67 replies to this topic

[Gigaton]

Aegis Kleais™, on 17 May 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

How is a destroyed thing "blocking" damage? The phrase "You're beating a dead horse" comes to mind. It's not gonna get any more dead. You might beat it into a fine mash with more damage, but it's not like any of the damage is going to jump to another horse"*

You shoot a 'mech from the left arc (eg, the 'mech sees you, it turns it's left torso towards you, anticipating your attack). It's left arm and left torso are gone. You try to hit the CT, but can't since the now destroyed left torso is inbetween. Since there is no damage transfer, the left torso absorbs the all damage (or the prospective damage is channeled into the rift between dimensions) and CT is unharmed.

Is that not "blocking" damage?

Edited by Gigaton, 17 May 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

ManDaisy, on 17 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

For example, if your right torso is destroyed , people should be able to hit your center torso internal structure by firing thru your right torso since it has nothing left to effectively soak up any damage. Picture a shish kabob being screwered from the side and not the front. As stated before firing thru a destroyed torso should transfer damage directly to the internals of the center torso and bypass any armor because there is no internal armor compartmentalizing the the torsos into three pieces.

Yes. If you attack from the proper angle then there is something to HIT and damage. You may not always have the perfect angle, nor always know the target has a dead section until your full LOS info comes in... (or you close to visual range)

[Heron]

Quote

I think he's not trying to say the damage should transfer to some other portion, but a savvy mechwarrior could abuse this to protect the fully functional leg with a physical barrier (the dead leg) by rotating the direction his legs are facing.

A mech with a crippled leg will not have the maneuverability to effectively employ that strategy.

[Ragotag]

I totally understand the Dev's reasoning on this, but without more information on the game mechanics it's all assumption at this point.

However, I do hope that there is no "bullet sponge" effect; I would rather that weapons fire passes through any destroyed section so that destroyed sections can not be used as a "bullet sponge". This way, a LT/RT could not protect the CT from side shots, just as a destroyed LL or RL could not protect the other leg.

Guess we'll just have to wait for open beta to observe the actual game mechanics and *then* provide the Dev's some feedback if needed.

[AlanEsh]

I actually think there should be a bit of armor between torso sections. Today's ships are compartmentalized, even AFVs do it to some extent. There is no reason a 100 ton mech wouldn't have compartmentalization.

For me this is simple. If the LT or RT is "black", i.e. totally destroyed, your shots should pass through it. If that carries them to the CT, then apply that damage to the CT armor if it exists, internal structure if armor is gone.

If your shot wouldn't pass through and hit the CT part of the damage model, well shoot again.

(edited for clarity!)

Edited by Angelicon, 17 May 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

monky, on 17 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I think he's not trying to say the damage should transfer to some other portion, but a savvy mechwarrior could abuse this to protect the fully functional leg with a physical barrier (the dead leg) by rotating the direction his legs are facing.

Gigaton, on 17 May 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

You shoot a 'mech from the left arc (eg, the 'mech sees you, it turns it's left torso towards you, anticipating your attack). It's left arm and left torso are gone. You try to hit the CT, but can't since the now destroyed left torso is inbetween. Since there is no damage transfer, the left torso absorbs the all damage (or the prospective damage is channeled into the rift between dimensions) and CT is unharmed.

Is that not "blocking" damage?

Oh, we're thinking 2 different things. I'm thinking you fired STRAIGHT on a Mech's damaged location. Where there's nothing but open sky behind it. In THIS case, it's just a bad shot to shoot at a destroyed location.

But if you're talking about shooting inwards towards a location PAST a destroyed one, then I'm on the same page you guys are. It should move inward to the next non-destroyed torso section and start doing damage.

[Monky]

Heron, on 17 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

A mech with a crippled leg will not have the maneuverability to effectively employ that strategy.

So you assume. 15 kph movement rate on a 4/6 mech is probably plenty to keep anyone not point blank from being able to shoot the other leg. We know the hunchback, a 4/6 movement speed mech, when legged moves at 15 kph from gameplay videos.

Edited by monky, 17 May 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually it's a 4/6.

[MaddMaxx]

monky, on 17 May 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

So you assume. 15 kph movement rate on a 3/5 mech is probably plenty to keep anyone not point blank from being able to shoot the other leg. We know the hunchback, a 3/5 movement speed mech, when legged moves at 15 kph from gameplay videos.

Well it is also assumed that even a gimped Mech has a gate as it moves. Thus the Legs separate and are singularly exposed, if only for short periods. Thus protecting one leg with a dead Leg would require the Mech stay motionless and the enemy be stupid enough to not at least attempt to move to get a better shot at the now exposed good Leg.

If there were any sense to be had though, shooting the soft back armor of said gimped Mech would likely be a far better target though.

Thus, we can then rightly attribute the real problem to being somewhere between the Mech chair/couch and its Joysticks..

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 May 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[Gigaton]

Angelicon, on 17 May 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

I actually think there should be a bit of armor between torso sections. Today's ships are compartmentalized, even AFVs do it to some extent. There is no reason a 100 ton mech wouldn't have compartmentalization.

Though I would point out that as a general rule (aside some bits an pieces on old steel warships) they do not use armour grade steel for such things. It's just structural steel. For intents and purposes, it can be said to be unarmoured internal structure as far as huge ammo explosions and direct weapon attacks are concerned (so to make Merkava example, the crew may be bit safer in the rear than in the traditional middle not because there is more armour between them and the front, but because there is more internal structure).

[Monky]

MaddMaxx, on 17 May 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Well it is also assumed that even a gimped Mech has a gate as it moves. Thus the Legs separate and are singularly exposed, if only for short periods. Thus protecting one leg with a dead Leg would require the Mech stay motionless and the enemy be stupid enough to not at least attempt to move to get a better shot at the now exposed good Leg.

If there were any sense to be had though, shooting the soft back armor of said gimped Mech would likely be a far better target though.

Thus, we can then rightly attribute the real problem to being somewhere between the Mech chair/couch and its Joysticks..

In all honesty, I think you're being pretty obtuse about this.

Ping. Human Response Time. Animation duration. Netcode Efficiency. Frame Rate. Distance to Target. Current Weapons Alignment.

We can throw an infinite amount of variables into this. The equation remains roughly the same - Guy who has invincible 'gimped' leg can use it to absorb damage by simply repositioning it inbetween you and his other leg even if the advantage is only momentary until you reposition or give up and aim at another part of his mech. And sure, you can shoot another target on his mech, but this removes legging death from the game, or unnecessarily complicates it.

To be concise, the only reason to argue for this is if you are wanting to manipulate this to your advantage to get around being legged. If that's what you want, that is fine to want. You should not however get it, because being legged is part of the game. It always has been.

Edited by monky, 17 May 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Gigaton, on 17 May 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

It also sounds off to expect it would block damage at all. It's structural integrity is gone. I'm not expecting to see damage transfer if you wouldn't hit the CT, but if you would hit the CT then yeah.

No no it does not, if a section is destroyed its gone, your AC 20 round is not going to fly into the missing Left Torso suddenly brake and go oh...empty make a right hand turn and hit the inside of the CT.

Now if your shooting at an angle whereby it would pass through the gaping whole and slam into the inside of the CT fine and fair.

Damage transfer was designed for a dice rolling game where you did not get to choose where to shoot.

Onto the issue of shielding, this has always been possible but in reverse, by sticking an armored side to shoot at rather than the black section, this is nothing new and in a team game good luck trying to absorb damage from multiple directions.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 17 May 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[Morashtak]

Target Mech (-TM-) is at the center of a circle, facing north towards the 12 o'clock position. Attacking Mech (AM) fires upon it;

1) AM is facing south at a position roughly due north of TM. The shot is aimed a destroyed area, let's say the left torso. No damage transfer as the energy/shell/etc passes through the already "empty" area.

2) AM is facing east at a position roughly due west of TM. The shot is aimed a destroyed area, the left arm. Modeling the shot shows damage would be transfered inwardly as the energy/shell/etc passes through the already "empty" area and affects the LT then the CT, if any damage is left over from destroying the LT.

3) Other scenarios are modeled and damage is applied as variants of the above based upon the relevant positions of AM and TM.


Legging - model this as well with elevation added. Attacking from higher terrain to lower; no damage transfer. Lower to higher; model it and apply.

Edited by Morashtak, 17 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[Gigaton]

DV^McKenna, on 17 May 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

No no it does not, if a section is destroyed its gone, your AC 20 round is not going to fly into the missing Left Torso suddenly brake and go oh...empty make a right hand turn and hit the inside of the CT.

Now if your shooting at an angle whereby it would pass through the gaping whole and slam into the inside of the CT fine and fair.

That's exactly what I said in the post you quoted.

[Monky]

DV^McKenna, on 17 May 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Onto the issue of shielding, this has always been possible but in reverse, by sticking an armored side to shoot at rather than the black section, this is nothing new and in a team game good luck trying to absorb damage from multiple directions.

Yes, but this costs you hitpoints to do so. That's why I recommended what I did earlier in the thread - a backup amount of hitpoints before the legs is destroyed, equal to the IS and Armor on the legs before they where destroyed. You would essentially have to do the same amount of HP damage to one leg as it took to gimp both legs, however if you do gimp both legs instead you will get the kill. In this way, the same amount of damage must be done in either situation. It's possible to shield a little bit and then swap to the undamaged leg to tank the hits, but at least there is a hard limit to how much this can be done.

It also would apply equally well to side torsos, except instead of determining if the mech is dead or not, it determines wether or not you lose the arm that is attached as well as the destroyed torso location. IMO ; this should be modeled by having it visually be blow off the mech so that it's clear this is no longer a target to waste shots on (also because it would look damned sweet).

Edited by monky, 17 May 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Victor Morson]

I hope this no-bleed thing only applies to legs. If it applies to side torsos, any 'mech lacking an XL engine will be able to just turn that torso to the enemy and use it as a giant bulky shield between shots, which is pretty high on the list of bad ideas.

[Solis Obscuri]

Ramien, on 16 May 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

In TT, there was damage transfer because hits were randomly allocated, and it sucks to see a 'hit' turn into a miss because you rolled a section you'd already destroyed.

In MWO, our shots will not be randomly assigned, so damage transfer isn't as needed. If you've destroyed your opponent's leg and they can no longer maneuver, get behind them and start taking out that back armor for the kill. Your aiming determines where the damage is placed, not the roll of the dice.

ManDaisy, on 17 May 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

Great I can see the min/ maxers munchins now. No leg armor, slow engine speed so "no real dif between damaged legs and fresh", max heat sinks, and boating up the wazzu with weapons/ missiles . Gah I hate this. If they mean no damage redirection by having the part Blown off completely then fine, but to act as a damage sponge, that kills another sponge, if you know what I mean.

Program_024, on 17 May 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Just reading the various posts on this hot subject and I've come to a certain conclusion. When you destroy a component on an enemy mech, why would you continue to shoot there? If a torso section is destroyed, and they use it as a shield, wouldn't it make it easier to exploit the rear armor of the mech? Say the left torso section has been completely destroyed. So they turn their torso to put the damaged between them and you. Now it is less of a trip to get behind them, especially with the faster mechs. If you don't like him trying to run away as he is using his shield, then blast a leg to hamper movement.

Having experimented with the Table Top a bit, I understand why there is damage transfer. Realistically, a Mech pilot won't target a destroyed area. The mechanic is there to simulate the hit, not being at the destroyed target, but the one next to it.

Aegis Kleais™, on 17 May 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Ehhhh.... not really.

Tactically, the idea of shooting a destroyed area and EXPECTING it to do some kinda damage seems a bit off to me.

I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't really think we've heard that anything will continue to "absorb" damage when it's been destroyed, only that destroyed areas will stop taking damage and will not transfer it as per TT - in effect, it sounds like we can just shoot through them, which should work fine. However, a couple things bother me;

• First,I sincerely hope that destroyed areas will clearly appear to be destroyed - I want to see daylight through them, not having to have the gamma just right on my display to tell the right degree of scorching that indicates destruction, or sort out the right shade of orange on the HUD to tell whether something is into heavy structure damage or whether it's actually gone. The devs have already indicated arms can be shot off, I'd like it if legs would at least appear to be gone, and something similar for side torsos to show they have been shot through and are no longer a target (I don't have a problem with letting 'mechs hop awkwardly, but I don't want to waste heat and/or ammunition shooting at a "ghost" leg or imaginary torso segment).
  
• Second, I want to be sure about how leg damage works - it's sounding less and less certain as to whether taking both legs off a 'mech kills it, or just makes it walk really slow. I think 1-leg kills are way too easy to exploit, but letting people survive with both legs fully destroyed has me imagining a 4-Gauss Annihilator with a downgraded engine, upgraded arm/torso armor and no leg armor standing with his *** tucked up against a cliff overlooking the primary advance path, looking to game the mechanics.
  
• Third, "no damage transfer" sounds to me like internal ammo explosions aren't going to do ****, just like in every other MW games, which I find really disappointing. It also makes me question whether XL engines are going to come with teh actual drawback of being destroyed with a side torso, or if they're just going to let you go a lot faster at the cost of 6 crit slots, like every other MW game. I've been hoping that some actual drawbacks to balance out some fo tech upgrades might finally make it in this time around.
  
• Fourth, there's this:

Garth Erlam, on 11 May 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

We launched version 2.0.14 this week, which has a (mostly) functional Mechlab. Immediately everyone set about trying to break it – we had all large laser Atlas’, Machinegun/AC-2/Flamer Hunchbacks, and a Jenner that seemed to go Mach 1, but we thought we’d share the following with you:
Modified Hunchback HBK 4P:

• Replace the six Medium Lasers in the right torso with six Small Lasers
  
• Change the arms to - right arm: 2x Medium Lasers, left arm: 2x Small Lasers
  
• Remove all heat sinks and armour from left torso
  
• Max the armour of both legs
  
• Add heatsinks to legs/right torso/arms until you’re maxed (26 total heatsinks)

The idea of this ‘Mech is that you run extremely cool, able to constantly fire your small lasers as you close in on your opponent. The leg armour prevents legging, and the reduced left torso armour allows you to stack it over more important areas. It performs extremely well close up, though be wary of ranged opponents, who will simply keep outside your small lasers distance and pick you apart!

The idea or allowing body segments to go completely unarmored, and the concept of floating limbs allowed to hover next to destroyed side-torsos is just an anathema to me.

[Belisarius1]

For torsos, if a dead hitbox ceases to interact with projectiles, that would be okay. However, you'd really need some visual indication of the torso's destruction, and the corresponding arm would have to fall off. Immortal torsos still blocking shots would be hilariously bad. So would floating arms and ghost torsos with models but no hitboxes.

For legs, personally, I favour a three-stage implementation like Monky's suggesting. Add a third level of internals after the 'mech is crippled which has stupidly high HP. If someone's determined enough to put like three more alphas there, the 'mech would die. Or fall over if that floats your boat. Killing a 'mech by ripping off its leg should be possible but really inefficient.

I'm also compelled to point out - for the zillionth time - that legging was never a problem even in MW4 unless you were a moron and stripped all your leg armour. Everyone who knew what they were doing shot for CT, because it was a much faster way to take someone out.

Edited by Belisarius†, 17 May 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[OperationExodus]

Here are my thoughts:

1) A destroyed arm falls off, period, gone.

2) A destroyed side torso would cease to function, but due to the incredible mass and density of all the systems on a mech, it wouldn't make much sense for a third of the mech's torso to simply disappear. It would be full of scrap armour, destroyed subsytems, debris, severed hoses, damaged myomer, etc.

3) as a result of this, I think that a destroyed torso should function as follows. any shot passing through the area has a small chance (say 30% for argument's sake) to strike the remnants of the old torso and impact on the broken piece. (AOE attacks notwithstanding, they would still splash even if they hit the torso. If a shot goes through the damaged side torso, it hits whatever it would hit if the torso were not there IE CT for a side shot, open sky for a shot from the front.

4) In terms of legs, I think the gimping strategy is a good one, as long as a destroyed, actuator-less cane-leg still has a small chance to block shots (say 30% of them, number is again for argument's sake). Once both legs are burned you are either a sitting duck or dead, TBH it really doesn't make a difference anyway cause 15kph=dead 99% of the time anyway.

I really would like the devs to see this so if you agree with anything I've said here please like it.

Thanks,
FD

Edited by Felix Davion, 10 June 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Rodney28021]

Prosperity Park, on 16 May 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

According to what I've gathered form the Live Tweet today, there will be no damage bleed-over from one destroyed compartment to another, and there will be no leg dismemberment...

...so what happens when you continuously nail a crippled Mech in its damaged leg? Does the leg become an invincible bullet-sponge? I'm sure there'll eventually be a solution implemented to deal with this, but I don't see any large BattleMechs using a "damaged" leg as a cane while that leg is constantly being fired upon by missile-after-missile after it's already gone "critical" and all of the actuators have failed...

There should certainly be a point where "critical" leg damage would result in a gimping Mech just as the Devs have outlined in their Tweets. However, I feel that sustained fire upon that damaged Leg should eventually result in the inability of that Mech to stand, whatsoever. I mean imagine that leg's structural components literally folding up and collapsing like crumpled paper under the weight of a gimping Mech after it takes "more-than-critical" damage. You can't use that as a crutch; it's collapsed!

I'm just saying that if you Gimp both legs, it should count as a Kill, but if you continuously fire upon a single gimp'd leg, then that leg should get become more damaged than it already is and result in the inability to walk anywhere at all.

In MWO, the devs say destroying both legs kills the mech. I think i am going to move some armor from the torso and max the legs out. Is, i hope, hitting the legs going to be harder hopefully since they are moving targets and 2 smaller objects close to the ground. In TT, a mech is destroyed by taking out the cockpit, head location, center torso, anything else the mech can live through except ammo explosions and 3 engine criticals. I hoped MWO would go to that TT rule. That would solve this issue of legging. Mechs without legs cannot participate much but they might have something to contribute with the AOE electronics gear like ECM installed or help spotting and directing for the team.
In TT rules there were the damage bleed over for the reason of making the hit you rolled go to an undestroyed section of the mech. In Mechwarrior video games, destroyed section disappear or fall off so if you fire your weapons into a destroyed section of the mech your fire should pass right through. You need to adjust your sights to an undamaged or whole part of the mech.