252 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Screech, on 09 April 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Make it so if you are ramming someone you are only going to do it once.

That would be a bad idea.

Crap happens, if you are running around at any real speed there are times you come over a crest and have no way to avoid another mech, particularly when there are ECM mechs around.

I've died to that one numerous times, I knew there were mechs in the area where I was going, I didn't know they were barely over a hill.

...and you aren't always on the ground where you can change course.

[Psikez]

Screech, on 09 April 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Monday Night Football was getting lame in CB. They pulled collisions because the player base can't be trusted not to grief broken mechanics.

Removing collisons made the game worse but they had no choice. Hopefully they figure out a way to put it back in but I am not sure. My suggestion would be to make collisions extremely damaging to both mechs. Make it so if you are ramming someone you are only going to do it once.

You sound mad about my dragon

[Yokaiko]

Five or maybe up to ten damage for a full speed collsion.....but anymore an it will just have zerging spiders plowing big things to hurt them when they get busted up.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Screech, on 09 April 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Monday Night Football was getting lame in CB. They pulled collisions because the player base can't be trusted not to grief broken mechanics.

(and Paul lol)

Psikez, on 09 April 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

You sound mad about my dragon

ah you mean the mech that the devs admitted was broken but ppl abused the **** out of anyways?
But like I said, the mechanic got yanked before it could get fixed.

[Boris The Spider]

At the end of the day, people don’t want realistic collisions and knockdowns, or even cannon rule ones, they want to reverse around in an Atlas at 30kmp knocking 3L's about like bowling pins while waving their fist out the window shouting "L2P Nooob!"

And there are a lot of rose tinted glasses out there with regards to knockdowns in the closed beta. It sucked as a mechanic and the game flows much better for it being removed. Lights are nowhere near as deadly as people are making out, I have seen dozens of wolf packs get mown down in seconds since the state rewind. I would say in respect to other mechs they are pretty well balanced, however they are not particularly well balanced against each other.

Bring knockdowns back if you must, but make is so any mech can be knocked down, resplendent with DFA mechanic and realisability modelled collision damage. If I JJ onto your Atlas' shoulders from behind in my CAT, you should plough face first into the ground and then be crushed into mangled sheet of waste metal when the feet come to rest on your torso. Now don't go telling me that the Atlas is heavier, or has more armour, because that CAT can walk around on those feet all day without taking any damage to them.... your back armour, not so optimised. You want it so a Jenner explodes when it hits your leg? Fine, but your loosing the leg.... don't put ammo in your leg any more, that will just make things worse Who am I kidding, your falling over about now, so ammo explosion is the least of your worries.

Edited by Boris The Spider, 09 April 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Screech]

Psikez, on 09 April 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

You sound mad about my dragon

Actually it was the fast Hunchbacks that were the worst(before engine restrictions). Avoiding 1-2 was bearable, but it seemed usually was 3 tacklers and 5 alphas.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Boris The Spider, on 09 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

And there are a lot of rose tinted glasses out there with regards to knockdowns in the closed beta.

never seen rosier hindsight other than ppl talking about vanilla wow *shudder*

[Kristov Kerensky]

Yokaiko, on 09 April 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Five or maybe up to ten damage for a full speed collsion.....but anymore an it will just have zerging spiders plowing big things to hurt them when they get busted up.

They'll only do it a fews time before they are dead though, collisions and charging in TT had simple rules based on tonnage and speed, smaller Mechs ramming bigger Mechs always came off worse for wear, even DFA is a Hail Mary move because it'll often leave a Light Mech without a leg, regardless of whether it works or not.

MW2 did that well, DFAs were possible and a lot of fun, but you paid for trying them any way it went.

[Yokaiko]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 09 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

never seen rosier hindsight other than ppl talking about vanilla wow *shudder*

Heh, in comparison, vanilla WAS the best expansion, BC was pretty good, it went to crap after that. Lich King was so bad that I couldn't make myself pay for Cata, in fact, I'll never give blizzard another dime.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Yokaiko, on 09 April 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

Heh, in comparison, vanilla WAS the best expansion, BC was pretty good, it went to crap after that. Lich King was so bad that I couldn't make myself pay for Cata, in fact, I'll never give blizzard another dime.

Stopped giving them money after I got BC

[Nutlink]

Exactly Boris. I want to see mechs get knocked on their ***, with the advantage going towards the heavier mech to stay up, but they shouldn't be unscathed from it. Then you might run into the issue of heavily damaged mechs doing a kamikaze run into your legs, but that can be reduced by having a suicide penalty in place.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

BOTA49, on 09 April 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Exactly Boris. I want to see mechs get knocked on their ***, with the advantage going towards the heavier mech to stay up, but they shouldn't be unscathed from it. Then you might run into the issue of heavily damaged mechs doing a kamikaze run into your legs, but that can be reduced by having a suicide penalty in place.

why a suicide penalty? Suicide is well glorified in battletech, I swear I remember a IS warship or two being purposefully rammed into a clan ship to destroy it

[Yokaiko]

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 April 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

They'll only do it a fews time before they are dead though, collisions and charging in TT had simple rules based on tonnage and speed, smaller Mechs ramming bigger Mechs always came off worse for wear, even DFA is a Hail Mary move because it'll often leave a Light Mech without a leg, regardless of whether it works or not.

MW2 did that well, DFAs were possible and a lot of fun, but you paid for trying them any way it went.

Charge
Weight divided 10 times hexes moved during the turn, all fractions rounded up in 5 point clusters to the defender, the attacker takes tonnage divided by 10 again in 5 pointers, hit location determined by angle of attack

DFA is roughly the same thing, except that if the defender takes attacker's weight divided by ten x3, then has to make a pilot check or take his OWN weight divided by ten.

...obviously this would difficult to model.

For one we can't declare a charge, and even then, how exactly do you derive hexes when everyone just runs around full throttle all of the time.

[Rashhaverak]

There's an old saying that I think answers the OP's question very well: Worry about the things you can change.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 09 April 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

why a suicide penalty? Suicide is well glorified in battletech, I swear I remember a IS warship or two being purposefully rammed into a clan ship to destroy it

Exactly, no reason to penalize someone beyond their own death if that death takes down an enemy with them, it's not exactly an unknown precept in the BTech Universe...who killed the original ilkhan of the Invasion? That's right, some kamikaze Samurai Viking chick in a fighter who put that sucker RIGHT into the bridge of the ilKhan's own flagship and right into him.

Yokaiko, since we don't have hexes, we use what those hexes of movement represent, speed of the object. This works just fine for collisions. Charges..seperate thing and someone mentioned somewhere, not sure where, that the devs had at one point mentioned a module that would allow Charges that would help negate the self damage aspect. I can't find that statement myself, so I don't know of it's veracity, but it sounds like a good option. Personally, since it's been mentioned more than once that Melee won't be in the 'standard game' but only possible in Solaris, I don't think we'll actually see Charges per se since they are actually a Melee attack. But who knows?

[Psikez]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 09 April 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

(and Paul lol)



ah you mean the mech that the devs admitted was broken but ppl abused the **** out of anyways?
But like I said, the mechanic got yanked before it could get fixed.

No people are still mad about my dragon, they always will be.

[Yokaiko]

Kristov Kerensky, on 09 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Yokaiko, since we don't have hexes, we use what those hexes of movement represent, speed of the object. This works just fine for collisions. Charges..seperate thing and someone mentioned somewhere, not sure where, that the devs had at one point mentioned a module that would allow Charges that would help negate the self damage aspect. I can't find that statement myself, so I don't know of it's veracity, but it sounds like a good option. Personally, since it's been mentioned more than once that Melee won't be in the 'standard game' but only possible in Solaris, I don't think we'll actually see Charges per se since they are actually a Melee attack. But who knows?

Yeah melee is something I have been rattling about since closed. A lot of goofiness would get knocked off if I could just kick the crap out of the guy trying to push by.

In TT that was usually the better option when you had arm weapons, why chance the miss when you could just punch out their cockpit.

[Ialti]

Megalosauroid, on 09 April 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

What part of the sentence "A: Yes when we re-introduce collisions after launch." indicates that to you? reading between the lines much?

Also there is a difference between a "temporary measure" and "we'll do it when we can be bothered, probably 6 months from now when we finish adding this load of monetisation content". I think if PGI had said the latter rather than the former when they removed collisions people would have been a lot less amicable about it.

Ehh... I'm actually not so annoyed at it. In fact, even if I had thought that taking collisions out was just the PGI laziness you claim it to be I would still be quite amicable. Damn happy, in fact. Wee.

[White Bear 84]

Corbon Zackery, on 09 April 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Collisions were being exploited by closed beta testers.

A example being one light mech colliding with a second light in front of many heavy's for a quick kill. Colliding to break streak locks. Colliding to break LRM lock. FF collisions huge reason there gone.

We really don't want to put them back in.

If a small object runs into a big object its going to fall over.

We want them back in but with a better mechanism that is not bugged

[LordBraxton]

When it was removed we went up in arms, they said it was a priority to reintroduce it.

if this is what counts as priority. ...