Jump to content

Slow Me Down Collision!


5 replies to this topic

Poll: Collision slows mechs and deflects weapons fire (12 member(s) have cast votes)

When a mech runs into an object it should slow down slightly

  1. Yes (11 votes [91.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 91.67%

  2. No (1 votes [8.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.33%

Destructable objects should block my fire until they are shot/knocked down

  1. Yes (9 votes [75.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.00%

  2. No (3 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 boxbox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 61 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 July 2015 - 10:09 PM

Hi all. Just like you, I have been waiting forever for map improvements like this and don't want to discourage PGI because I know they have a lot on their plate and are doing a good job.
Although I haven't played the new river city yet (downloading patch as I type), I wish to express an objection to the idea that colliding with objects won't slow me down or deflect weapon fire...

Patch notes state:
"These objects will not block or slow down mechs or weapons fire."

Now some of you might say "Well I don't want to be slowed down by tree's in my path. I just want to smash stuff and watch things burn..." and that is fine and dandy but let me remind you that MechWarrior is not a fast paced shooter game. It has always been about strategy. And in fact in the original RPG trees/objects do slow you down when you run into them making you think.. "Do I really want to go through this dense forest or would it be better to go around. Anyway that is my 2 cents... Add slowing of mechs on collision and deflect weapons fire.

See you on the battlefield MechWarriors.

Edited by boxbox, 08 July 2015 - 01:20 AM.


#2 boxbox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 61 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 July 2015 - 01:19 AM

Ok so I tried it and there seems to be a small bump when you run over a tree. but the trees are small... Maybe they need bigger trees... and destructible buildings :)))

What do you guys think?

Edited by boxbox, 08 July 2015 - 01:19 AM.


#3 Nik Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,273 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 03:48 AM

Yeah, sounds good for the most part, but let me ask you, do you really think a lamp pole or a single tree would stop a burst of bullets that each of the cannon shots that ACs are supposed to be?

Even if we decide they should than we'd need trees to be destroyed with lasers too so that ballistic weapons don't waste ammo on them.

#4 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 04:20 AM

What I would also want is that collisions with the map would do a VERY SMALL amount of damage to the mech. Something like 0.1 or 0.01. The benefits would be these:

1) People would learn to drive their mechs better

2) When for example backing up, you would see the damage doll flicker a little bit and understand better which part of your mech you just drove into a building. Now you just hear the Das Boot metal clanking sounds and wonder which way to turn to stop getting stuck (when going backwards).

#5 Josef Koba

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 527 posts

Posted 08 July 2015 - 05:27 AM

I don't think I could get behind even a small amount of damage being done to a mech in most cases of collisions with inanimate objects like statues, trees, or even buildings. I don't think these objects are hard enough nor is there enough kinetic energy unless, say, a light blasted into a building head on at full speed. Our machines are armored to protect against weapons designed to harm armor. Plus, it's sometimes difficult to tell where your mech is spatially; how far out your arms stick, that sort of thing.

I'd be open to it being done realistically, taking into consideration mass and speed and the hardness/mass of the objects one collides with. But I could shoot bricks out of a potato gun all day long at the glacis plate of an M1 Abrams tank and it would not harm the integrity of the armor. Smashing into a building at low speed with an assault might do damage, or might not, depending on the scenario. I could see comms and electronics damaged, perhaps. Probably not armor or structure unless the top floors fell on it.

In any case, I hope this is a step in the destructible environment direction, though I can see how that might be abused too. No need to drive down avenues of approach in a city when you can simply make your own holes in buildings (though that's somewhat realistic). So perhaps there need to be cost/benefits to such things.

#6 boxbox

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 61 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:29 PM

Quote

Even if we decide they should than we'd need trees to be destroyed with lasers too so that ballistic weapons don't waste ammo on them.


Agreed. A lot of times especially in smaller mechs you can't see through the trees and it would be nice to get them out of your way with quick laser blast or a shot from your mg. It would be cool to see the trees catch on fire too if you hit them with a laser.


Quote

you would see the damage doll flicker a little bit and understand better which part of your mech you just drove into a building

I like this idea too. It would feel more like your hitting something if your arm or leg flashed but like Josef Koba said I don't think players would tolerate even a small amount of damage.

Other thoughts that came to mind were that a light mech would definitely be slowed down by these trees as they are the same height where as a 100 ton assault might have just a small bump like is currently employed in the game.

Also PGI: you did nice with the trees, lamp posts, and antennas but why didn't you go one tiny step farther and make the vehicles destructible... I hope these items gets changed before you go off revamping all the other maps.

Edited by boxbox, 18 July 2015 - 11:30 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users