Knockdown / Leg Loss more matching of TT

[Lord_Eol]

Sorry if this has been brought up but a search came up empty. Two things that drive me nuts here (among other things but most of those other folk have covered) is movement post-leg loss (should be limited to 1 hex/space) as well as the lack of mech injury on knockdown. Stability damage is pointless with the horrible initiative system hence to make it more meaningful, should match TT here. If you fall down / knocked down / etc you take damage in addition to the pilot injury. And if you lose a leg, well movement speed 1 rest of game sans jump jets.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

The BATTLETECH Stability System is something that Harebrained Schemes created out of whole cloth. They took PSR and in time crafted the Stability System we have now. Something that materially improves the BattleTech franchise.

The same with Turn Order.

I know you disagree. And that is understandable, but BATTLETECH Turn Order incentivized Light and Medium BattleMech gameplay. While Big is a degree, Better in BATTLETECH, it is far from the trump of everything that BattleTech would have it. :bow:

 

[Lord_Eol]

Well except it doesn't as nothing ever limits you to tonnage. There is literally no mission where you are incentivized to take lower tonnage intentionally. In TT 4 light mechs can kill 4 assault mechs, in HBS BATTLETECH 4 Light mechs can't kill one assault mech and late game missions aren't build around "take less tonnage either". The entire game is about 4 assault mechs period but that wasn't a point I was trying to focus on here.

Neither of those have anything to do with "why does losing a leg not limit my speed to 1" nor "why don't I take damage from falling". That is not size class dependent and, if anything, would benefit smaller mechs which could dance around a one legged assault mech unlike now where he just stands up and punches you. Ditto light/mediums mech don't have stability issues, the DPS kills them first whereas knockdown damage is a viable strategy v. assault mechs.

Nobody (here) is asking for the entire stability system to be redone (though many would argue HBS is suffering from engineering baby syndrome on it), mechs taking damage on knockdown or limiting movement speed to one on leg loss is independent of that system.

 

[Havamal]

IIRC severely limited movement on leg destruction was in the game at one point during development.
I think the Devs pulled back on it to the point it is now because it just contributed too much to the death spiral in prototyping. A legged mech at that point was quickly a dead mech, unless it had JJs. Which was just another thing that made jump jets better but detracted from Mechs without them.
Enter eventually the current balance for damaged leg movement.

Just providing the context.

 

[Lord_Eol]

"A legged mech at that point was quickly a dead mech, unless it had JJs. "

Yeah that is literally the point hence why (fluff wise) legs were armored just as heavily as the torsos usually, sometimes more. Like you (well the devs) are literally sayings "the devs felt a feature that was integral to the game and made game play better was a bug because OMG the ancient concept of casualties"

 

[Havamal]

"A legged mech at that point was quickly a dead mech, unless it had JJs. "

Yeah that is literally the point hence why (fluff wise) legs were armored just as heavily as the torsos usually, sometimes more. Like you (well the devs) are literally sayings "the devs felt a feature that was integral to the game and made game play better was a bug because OMG the ancient concept of casualties"

You're welcome to disagree. But that doesn't change the history of how, and why it was arrived at. Previous Feedback.
Carry on.

 

[Lord_Eol]

Yeah fair, wasn't an attack on you and it's good to hear, still would have loved to be a fly on that wall because that still doesn't answer the why they felt it was a good design decision.

 

[Havamal]

Yeah fair, wasn't an attack on you and it's good to hear, still would have loved to be a fly on that wall because that still doesn't answer the why they felt it was a good design decision.

Not everyone has the same preferences for play is probably all it is, which is consequently born out by feedback.
If I were to postulate a guess it would be that we all have things that might not mesh with each others preferences or those of the general player base in a huge IP like this that includes so many different kinds of players.



If it helps I'm 90% certain there's already a simple mod for that limited movement with leg damage though, and is a good example of why the devs made so many elements easily moddable. House rules are common in TT after all.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

Well except it doesn't as nothing ever limits you to tonnage...

There are quite a few FLASHPOINTS where tonnage restrictions come into play. HBS has made good use of various rationales and basis for the use of Lighter Lances.

...In TT 4 light mechs can kill 4 assault mechs, in HBS BATTLETECH 4 Light mechs can't kill one assault mech...

I respectfully disagree and offer up Good @Edmon ’s Four Lights Video as proof:

...Neither of those have anything to do with "why does losing a leg not limit my speed to 1" nor "why don't I take damage from falling"...

Here’s something you may or may not know. In developing BATTLETECH Movement, HBS opted to craft BATTLETECH Movement on a curve.

While 4/6’s and 5/8’s move according to straightforward translations from BattleTech, 2/3, 3/5, 7/11 and 8/12’s have been shifted toward the Mean, rather significantly in the case of 2/3’s and 8/12’s.

While this did detract from a BattleMech’s identity and distinctiveness to a degree, in my opinion it more than made up for it by keeping all Mechs more or less relevant.

It also facilitated a Lance retaining its cohesion as it moves to, through and between instances of Combat.



As to a Mech not taking damage when it falls... I agree with you here. BATTLETECH would be all the better if BattleMechs took damage when they fall to Instability and lost Legs. It need not be a direct port of TT, even a nominal amount damage would increase immersion and reinforce BATTLETECH authenticity. HBS does attach damage to DFA’s so the mechanism is there... applying it to Mech Falls just might be something out Modding Community is already on top of. : )

 

[Lord_Eol]

Fair (@Havamal) but for a game (for us kickstarter guys) that promised us BT, we didn't get it. Also feedback is usually a poor design factor anyways on major changes to an established system as it's often prone to sampling bias as well as bully vetoes. While that is neither here nor there I have a hard time believing, though if HBS has the data and shared it, would love to see it, some comprehensive study conducted with both systems against "Existing BattleTech players that would buy the game, players who have never played BattleTech but like tactical combat games, likely new player to franchise or genre" and further subdivided with ages and the projected sales differences against the two different implementations. But my real guess is some particular dev or sales guy, and/or their couple friends, just didn't like it. I have hard time imagining "limiting movement to speed one and having the concept of casualties" moved sales either way in a statistically significant manner hence why not just stick with the one closer to TT given it really didn't matter from a money perspective even at the margins.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

... House rules are c̶o̶m̶m̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶TT after all.

There. Fixed it for you. : )

 

[Prussian Havoc]

Fair (@Havamal) but for a game (for us kickstarter guys) that promised us BT, we didn't get it...

HBS never once, never once promised us BattleTech.

Let’s not forget or reinvent the past here, shall we. :bow:

 

[Havamal]

Fair (@Havamal) but for a game (for us kickstarter guys) that promised us BT, we didn't get it.

If you mean you were promise Battetch TT, that is unfortunately not accurate.

Spoiler

As a kickstarter backer myself I can assure you that the devs have been adamant since the first day that this game would be inspired by the IP as a whole, and the spirit of the TT but would not be reproducing the TT rules wholesale.

 

[Lord_Eol]

Let's see that video with AI light mechs (player controlled assault), not player controlled OR AI-vs.AI OR Player-v.-Player. Abusing the AI is easy. Also let's take a real more common scenario "My 4 light mechs v. opponent running 5 skulls late game" and see how that gets you.

> keeping all Mechs more or less relevant.

An irrelevant design point. Not all mechs are relevant nor ever meant to be. If you are ever taking an UrbanMech in BT outside a city map with rules HBS never implemented (i.e. hidden ambushes from INSIDE a building) well that is just stupid. Ditto taking a Atlas on a "intercept convoy" mission. All mechs don't need to be relevant, right tool for right mission.

> It also facilitated a Lance retaining its cohesion as it moves to, through and between instances of Combat.

Not sure how that changes anything. Can do it now just fine, just don't move max. Not a big deal. Also don't build mixed lances; lances weren't meant for that. Companies are mixed lances, mechs in lances support the same mission for that specialized lance.

Damage Point: I'm anti-mod for key game design concepts but that's just me. I will look around the mod community though, maybe you are right and it exists.

 

[Lord_Eol]

@Havamal lol get back to me when I get "tactical depth or meaningful unit customization" or "spirit of the rules". I'm not asking for a one-for-one here (though TBH not sure why they think think it wouldn't sell, GW Franchise suffers same issue) but yeah, spirit. Spirit is mechs take meaningful damage and degrade significantly in capabilities to the point of uselessness even if not dead via the concept of casualties (just like in real life it's better to wound an opponent than kill him). THAT is the spirit of TT combat outside Solaris. Also let me know where the introduction of magic and AOE was in the spirit of combat here; I must have missed that in in every FASA BT product I owned (all of them). Being limited to speed one because HE LOST A LEG (you ever seen how fast amputees without a prosthetic or a person who had their entire leg shattered from an heavy equipment accident move?) isn't detrimental to the spirit of the game lol, it was a key component of that spirit hence hwy "kicking" was preferable to punching and why legs were often armored as much as torso if not arms. Ditto concepts of taking damage while falling down which would require you to decide "Do I wish to remain prone or risk taking damage trying to standup". Those are SPIRIT items.

 

[Havamal]

@Havamal lol get back to me when...

I believe that was already covered imho.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ss-more-matching-of-tt.1304966/#post-26148762

Thank you.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

Let's see that video with AI light mechs (player controlled assault), not player controlled OR AI-vs.AI OR Player-v.-Player...

I’ve never turned down a Multiplayer Opportunity. I’ll spot you 260-tons - my 140-tons to any four 100-tonners you choose. I may not win, but I will play.

Care to give it a roll? : )

...> keeping all Mechs more or less relevant.

An irrelevant design point. Not all mechs are relevant nor ever meant to be. If you are ever taking an UrbanMech in BT outside a city map with rules HBS never implemented (i.e. hidden ambushes from INSIDE a building) well that is just stupid. Ditto taking a Atlas on a "intercept convoy" mission. All mechs don't need to be relevant, right tool for right mission...

A BattleTech UrbanMech’s movement profile is... limiting. That is just not he case in BATTLETECH, I’ve used Urbies on every Biome and across just about all the Contract Types.

in BATTLETECH, it works.

Same, same for Atlases and King Crabs chasing down Convoys. This is not just possible in BATTLETECH but highly likely.

Though I do admit, Jump Jets are key. :bow:

...Damage Point: I'm anti-mod for key game design concepts but that's just me. I will look around the mod community though, maybe you are right and it exists.

Looks like github just might have something for you. :bow:

 

[Edmon]

Let's see that video with AI light mechs (player controlled assault), not player controlled OR AI-vs.AI OR Player-v.-Player. Abusing the AI is easy. Also let's take a real more common scenario "My 4 light mechs v. opponent running 5 skulls late game" and see how that gets you..

Prussian Havoc linked you only the first video in a campaign where I used only lights, it is about 40 videos long and I am crushing 5 skull missions with my lights by the end.

It was very popular, so I then did another campaign called "There are more lights", where I continued to crush 5 skulls with lights, eventually, I got down to doing it with just 2 lights... and even just using the god awful cicada and 1 light.

Lights are the most powerful tanks in the game. They are effectively immortal, when played and built correctly. I have a video on the math behind it, which you can find here:

This video includes a long battle after the explaination, in which I faced off against 8xMechs as well as 4X turrets, most of them heavy or assault class. All at the same time. It was the perfect explaination of just how much a team of lights could be relentlessly attacked and still hardly take any damage.

You are very wrong about light mechs. They have less firepower than much heavier mechs, but are otherwise totally superior... faster, harder to kill and in most circumstances able to take down mechs faster than all other classes. They also result in 6 minute missions, where you just sprint around the back of your enemy in a few turns, then unload into their RT usually killing them instantly.

I hope this helps clarfly things for you.

 

[Timaeus]

Yeah fair, wasn't an attack on you and it's good to hear, still would have loved to be a fly on that wall because that still doesn't answer the why they felt it was a good design decision.

Hazarding a guess? Because death spirals are unfun for players on the receiving end, and counter to the idea of not wanting to make it so the player feels they must reload. Which was a stated design goal.

 

[Timaeus]

I’ve never turned down a Multiplayer Opportunity. I’ll spot you 260-tons - my 140-tons to any four 100-tonners you choose. I may not win, but I will play.

Care to give it a roll? : )


A BattleTech UrbanMech’s movement profile is... limiting. That is just not he case in BATTLETECH, I’ve used Urbies on every Biome and across just about all the Contract Types.

in BATTLETECH, it works.

Same, same for Atlases and King Crabs chasing down Convoys. This is not just possible in BATTLETECH but highly likely.

Though I do admit, Jump Jets are key. :bow:



View attachment 537797

Looks like github just might have something for you. :bow:

That mod has not been updated since 1.4 and as such would almost assuredly break with the current game state.