15 replies to this topic

[Helsbane]

The manner in which battlemech mobility has been restricted is flawed in execution (and not just because of the 'pebbles of steel' issue). Battlemechs (and all the 'mech chassis of the Battletech / Mechwarrior universe) were put into service because their humanoid or 'walker based frames had better mobility and agility than their conventional vehicle counterparts. Mechs can step over anti-tank ditches and obstacles, climb slopes which ground vehicles cannot, and are generally more mobile due to them having basically the same mobility mechanics as humans (or chickens, as the case may be).

Think about it for a moment, a batttlemech has the ability to step over things, walk up stairs / steps, and maintain their balance by utilizing human-like movement. This is what makes a large humanoid frame (or chicken, no exclusions here) superior to the same weight / weapons payload placed on a standard conventional vehicle chassis (be it a tracked, wheeled, or air cushion vehicle). If the humanoid frame wasn't BETTER at the job, they wouldn't have been seen as advantageous over the conventional vehicles that were available.

The slope detection mechanic introduced in the last patch renders these humanoid and chicken frames inferior to the standard 'brick on tracks' conventional vehicles that we have in our own era. Stay with me, I'll 'splain how... Mechs, be they humanoid or bird frame, are supposed to be able to overcome obstacles through greater flexability than that possessed by a rigid hull design such as a tank. The steeper the slope, the harder they have to work to maintain their balance, yes, but they have that extra engine power available. It's right there in the battlemech description under lifting capacity.

A standard battlemech has the ability to carry 10% of its total weight. This additional strength is exactly what would be applied under combat conditions to traverse steep inclines and overcome obstacles. The engine power needed to maintain speed on steep or uneven terrain is already there and the ability to balance on steep slopes is due to the frame / gyro combination. Feet are superior to tracks and wheels because they cause minor terrain deformation (footprints) when climbing slopes. When a full mobile human encounters a steep slope, we dig in our feet in different ways to maintain traction. Mechs would be no different, or what's the point in using one? If they didn't perform better than a tank, regardless of mobility type, they wouldn't be used.

As for how to limit battlemech mobility on certain slopes, simply put in exclusion zones. The high cliffs on Alpine for example... At some point, a slope stops being traversable without changing mechanics of locomotion (going from 'walk' to 'crawl'). Simply determine the angle at which an average person must make this change, and create an effect on the map which negates the walking mechanic. Only JJ equiped mechs would be able to traverse these slopes. Do away with the whole 'variable slopes affecting speed' mechanic and treat mechs like humanoid frames, not tanks.

TL;DR - Mechs move like people, not tanks, trucks, or hovercraft......

[LastPaladin]

Helsbane, on 07 July 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Simply determine the angle at which an average person must make this change, and create an effect on the map which negates the walking mechanic.

Just common sense tells one that the angle should be at least 60 degrees. Nobody has any problem walking up 45 degree slopes. It may be tiring, or slow us down, but we don't have to start looking for handholds. I think, as others have observed, they probably picked the angle they did because this is a mechanic that they are retroactively adding after they designed the maps, and so there probably aren't enough 60 degree slopes for them to feel they achieved the "balance" that they are looking for. The drawback to that approach is that choosing such an angle breaks your intuitive "feel" for where you should be able to go.

[Helsbane]

The real issue with the manner in which they implemented the new slope mechanic is that it was never accounted for when the maps were designed, just sorta slapped on as an afterthought. If they had planned ahead (novel concept....) then the maps wouldn't have been littered with piles of rubble, handrails, and other artifacts sporting 90 degree angles. Now, if they start thinking 'humanoid frame' (or chicken frame..), then they'll realize that implementing a movement penalty that's only really relevant to conventional vehicles is just a crap idea and remove the slope mechanic entirely.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

A well-reasoned argument! One could also discuss how gravity on each map, assuming they represent different worlds, could or should be different and would also affect a mech's ability to climb steep hills. And, we have pebbles of steel, but the big, hulking wreck of a mech doesn't stop us?

[KingCobra]

All past MechWarrior PC games the mechs maneuvered much better even MW2.Some where PGI devs got this lame brain idea BT & MechWarrior mechs were these slow lumbering hay wagons that took 10 baseball fields to turn around in. Needless to say this approach has made MWO a terrible MechWarrior game to play and have fun. Trying to dodge shots and use OMG actual tactics and skill to win is just not possible because all MWO uses is a MM that's just a BIG FREE FOR ALL segregated into 2 half's. I would not even call it team play. This is just one issue with why im LOLLOL having more fun playing the free version of WOW than MWO.

[SovietKoshka]

Hearb Hear! I concur With the opening poster! DOWN WITH THE PEBBLES OF IRON!

[Helsbane]

Another aspect of battlemech mobility the devs seem to have totally overlooked is the hemet interface the pilot is using. Basically, the helmet allows the pilot to help in correcting the balance of the mech, using his own equilibrium to assist the gyro in keeping the mech upright, running, hill climbing.... The pilot interface causes the mech to behave as if it were an extension of the pilot's body, reacting to outside stimuli the way a human (or chicken...) reacts to their surroundings while moving from point to point.

Instead, the incremental slope system they put in makes everything seem like I'm piloting an '83 Chevette with the AC cranked.

The slope system doesn't need fine tuning. It needs to be completely scrapped and throught out as though this were a game about large humanoid frames (yes, chickens too...sheesh...) instead of turrets with legs.

[Josef Koba]

Helsbane, on 08 July 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Another aspect of battlemech mobility the devs seem to have totally overlooked is the hemet interface the pilot is using. Basically, the helmet allows the pilot to help in correcting the balance of the mech, using his own equilibrium to assist the gyro in keeping the mech upright, running, hill climbing.... The pilot interface causes the mech to behave as if it were an extension of the pilot's body, reacting to outside stimuli the way a human (or chicken...) reacts to their surroundings while moving from point to point.

I was just about to add this as I was reading the rest of the thread. Last week I spent some time reading about BT and 'mechs in general. There's a lot of supporting evidence to suggest exceptional mobility in most circumstances given the helmet interface and 'mech software. Granted, this game is "apocryphal" and not "canonical" but I think the point remains.

There's this:
"Most BattleMechs copy the human form to an extent, which is the deciding factor in their versatility and ultimately, their superior combat performance. The entire system is controlled by a pilot wearing a neurohelmet which links the 'Mech's central computer to the pilot's sense of balance and nervous system. Augmented by a combination of throttle, joystick, and dual pedal system, the 'Mech pilot controls the BattleMech like an extension of his own body, comparable to a very large combat suit. Many 'Mechs have fully articulated hands that can be used to climb or grab items." (Source: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/BattleMech)

And this has lots of stuff that I found interesting, above and beyond mobility.
http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

It's part of the reason that I have come to the conclusion that these bipedal behemoths are more than just simple actuators and hydraulic pumps, but virtually an extension of the MechWarrior. As such, I don't really think that these 'mechs would take such a significant mobility hit. Now, I don't mind MOST of the mobility hits presented in game at present. There are some that are beyond absurd (small rocks, the river bank in Canyon Network), but I don't have a problem limiting some mobility - it forces some tactical decision making. And certainly my Atlas can't clime a sheer cliff. So I don't need to see that. But it does seem that these limits are artificially imposed and, to be frank, probably not realistic for a machine set 1,000 plus years in the future.

[Helsbane]

I just can't see a huge humanoid frame, powered by a fusion drive, and actuated by synthetic muscles being slowed down significantly by a slope until it reaches the point where you have to either A.) struggle for balance -or- B.) change the mobility mechanic (hit the point where they need 3 points of contact at minimum). On steeper slopes, yes, they would slow down a touch, but given a 100 ton mech has the capacity to LIFT 10% of its total weight (this says nothing of its towing capacity) the power required to climb is there. Add a minor heat penalty if you must to indicate the increased power output of the drive system as it 'downshifts' or what have you, but having them slow down on gradual slopes is just horrible. Current performance with the slope mechanic in its current state is akin to world war one tank speed and handling, not futuristic humanoid frame movement (and chickens.... don't forget the chickens.....)...

[Aslena]

I also think it brings down the feel of the game as well...

but also considering Mechs are supposed to range in height from 7 to 17 meters (23 to 50 feet) I don't really think it'd feel like you were going all that fast if you were driving a 7 meter tall mech at 150kph either. Course with the scaling issues in the game "smalls being less than 1/4 the height of an atlas rather than half" it feels extremely fast.

[Tstyles]

Would it make sense for the mechs to speed up when they're going down a slope? Makes sense to me...

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

FFS, stop this "chicken" ********. Chicken's legs have forward bending knees, just like every other animal on Earth. That's right, NO ANIMAL HAS KNEES THAT BEND BACKWARDS!

[Helsbane]

That's because technically, it's the ankle. Thing is, with this crowd, you have to point these things out or you get "Wel wat aboot mah Ravn?!? Itz got dem burd legz!" Then we have to start breaking out diagrams of skeletal reference, mobility videos, images of people walking up slopes and stepping over obstacles in comparison to chickens walking up slopes and stepping over obstacles, and it would be a nightmare...

My point wasn't that chickens have knees, or how to cook them properly. It was to convey the sheer foolishness of treating a frame with humanoid skeletal range of motion (and..... wait for it..... CHICKEN) like a conventional tank and imposing mobility restrictions based on the most minor of slopes. Take a moment today and watch a few videos on how mobile a modern tank is, then realize that Battlemechs replaced them because they can do things tanks can't (and for a 65 ton brick an Abrams is pretty damn nimble). Mech mobility in this game is all wrong (not talking about top speeds here, just the ability to deal with obstacles, terrain features, pebbles of steel...) and should have been looked at in an entirely different manner.

[Meridian]

Helsbane, on 08 July 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The real issue with the manner in which they implemented the new slope mechanic is that it was never accounted for when the maps were designed, just sorta slapped on as an afterthought. If they had planned ahead (novel concept....) then the maps wouldn't have been littered with piles of rubble, handrails, and other artifacts sporting 90 degree angles. Now, if they start thinking 'humanoid frame' (or chicken frame..), then they'll realize that implementing a movement penalty that's only really relevant to conventional vehicles is just a crap idea and remove the slope mechanic entirely.

Yup. The newest map whose name escapes me is horrendous. I was in an Atlas walking along one of the streams and I was essentially stuck in that stream until I happened to blunder into an area that let me escape it.

My twelve meter, hundred ton war machine was trapped by something that wouldn't have slowed down a jeep.

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 08 July 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

A well-reasoned argument! One could also discuss how gravity on each map, assuming they represent different worlds, could or should be different and would also affect a mech's ability to climb steep hills. And, we have pebbles of steel, but the big, hulking wreck of a mech doesn't stop us?

Actually, that big hulking wreck will stop you...if it's part of the map. The big hulking mech will stop you if it's up and moving and alive. Once it's dead it won't stop you.

That's some awesome logic there, yo.

Edited by Meridian, 10 July 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[cmdr_scotty]

it's one of those game mechanics that sounds good in theory, but when they put it into practice, it not only missed the barn they were aiming for, but even missed the neighbors barn that could have been hit.

It even made be go back and play a bit of the last 3 games to see the movement types in each game.

1. mechs could scale grades that were upto around 55-60* (MW2 would cause damage to the legs if you kept trying to scale a grade that was too steep)
2. gravity played a role in how fast you could move. (higher gravity equated to slower mech speed)
3. maps (starting with mw3 and mw4) invisible ramps that allowed mechs to 'climb' over decorations that shouldn't stop the mech. so that only the obvious would stop it. (generally objects at hip height)

Side note not related to movement

MW2 showed heat that exceeded shutdown threshold, but capped at the point you were in danger of meltdown. (i.e. shut down is at 100%, heat gauge goes to 120% and caps there)

[Helsbane]

The very concept of slope detection affecting 'Mech mobility should have died at the proposal stage if they'd only taken the time to look at the mesh of each map. I'd be fine with exclusion zones at say, 60 degrees, but the implementation of their 'solution' is something you'd get a failing grade on if this were a class project.

My wife wanted to know if I wanted the Project package for my birthday this year. Looks like I'll be picking up a Marlin 795 instead, because it won't dissappoint me...