23 replies to this topic

[tuffy963]

I am an avid Battletech table top fan. All of my comments below should be taken in one overarching context: I am thoroughly enjoying MWO and think you guys have something great here.

This observation has one general point... The engine does a poor job of handling mass, inertia, and volume in any coherent fashion. During game play this undermines the games sense that you are in a multi-ton vehicle. Here are a few examples of where the current beta game does not impress when it comes to physics...

• Mech on Mech contact - Currently a there is no interesting mechanics guiding these interactions. A 40T mech that is smashed into by a 90T mech cannot be pushed, pinned, knocked over, destroyed, or even have the pilot slightly jostled. This also creates strange situations with team members were, due to the current mushy physics, team members tend to "crowd" corners for a shot.
  
• Mech on Environment Contact - A few things need to be destructible.... Cars, parts of buildings, etc. Every Time my 90T mech gets stuck on an indestructible fence, I die a little inside.
  
• Falling Down - A major aspect of the table top play is the ability for a mech to fall over. This adds a tremendous amount of variety to the game and opens up interesting physical combat options for everyone
  
• DFA - Enough said.
  
• Surface Hardness & Traction - Another aspect of the game that would unlock some very interesting tactics in maps is the ability for the maps to have hardness/traction characteristics assigned to any piece of terrain. In conjunction, mechs could have suspension or other performance characteristics will moving over this terrain. moving through muddy lake bottoms should slow mechs, and greatly slow heavy mechs. Conversely running 120 KPH over concrete should result in a skidding effect if a mech turns suddenly. In this example, light mechs could then be differentiated by small performance characteristics that might make one chassis handle a bit better on concrete than another.
  
• Physical Combat - Similar to DFA, a core aspect of TT Battletech. It is also key to game play strategy as I believe a 30T mech should FEAR getting too close to a 100T mech who should be able to deliver a debilitating kick to the dangerous little pest.

Thanks for listening...

[Tannhauser Gate]

+1 I concur.

All good ideas and yes, the engine currently doesnt account for large masses in motion. The devs have posted (Ive forgotten who) that CE3 was made for human sized avatars so it may be that the engine wont be able to approach these. I hope they can pull it off. These all need to be added to created immersion.

And yes, I also thoroughly enjoy MWO and think PGi have something great here

Edited by LakeDaemon, 14 June 2013 - 02:03 PM.

[Flapdrol]

mechs slowing down when climbing a hill

[senaiboy]

Collision and mechs falling over were taken out of the game months ago. It is still in the pipeline, however it will only be implemented after launch.

Destructible environment won't be in the final product AFAIK, although they did mention they are looking at it.

It has to be noted that this is not a AAA game with huge budget, and it's being developed by a relatively small team. It probably isn't realistic to expect Battlefield-esque kind of detail in it. Right now we're waiting to see how Community Warfare will turn out, which is a better determinant of how this game will do than the minor details.

[tuffy963]

senaiboy, on 14 June 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

It has to be noted that this is not a AAA game with huge budget, and it's being developed by a relatively small team. It probably isn't realistic to expect Battlefield-esque kind of detail in it. Right now we're waiting to see how Community Warfare will turn out, which is a better determinant of how this game will do than the minor details.

I find it interesting that you are willing to justify the game's lack of competitive features based on extenuating business factors (size of PGI). Ultimately, PGI is an entertainment business, and has to compete with every other entertainment business that is vying for our attention. These guys seem swell, but for me, they don't get any breaks because they are "a relatively small team". There are ways to bring those resources online, if PGI deems it critical to the success of MWO (and PGI).

For my part, I see a company that is very focused on the "low hanging fruit" of getting the game up and operating. That needs to be balanced against bringing something truly unique experiences to the gaming arena. As it stands right now, MWO seems like a copycat of World of Tanks business model and in game experience... Of course, WOT does have a fantastic physics engine in that game. In PGI's defense, It is worth noting that WOT did not get their physics figured out until year 2.

I do agree that it can wait for 4-8 months, but the desired experience should be getting figured out now.

[HarmAssassin]

Let's not forget that when a mech fell, it could only get back up if it had a functioning arm with intact actuators (would love to see a Jenner try to stand up... not happening).

A mech with no arms or no functioning arms could not stand up. If they bring knockdowns into this game, I REALLY hope that they put that mechanic in as well. Can only get up if you have an arm that can lift you up.

As for the game engine not being able to handle giant sized avatars - that's irrelevant. Remember, the game doesn't care. It isn't the avatars that are big, it is everything else that is small. The mech avatars aren't 50 feet tall, they only look 50 feet tall because everything else is made to look tiny.

The game doesn't measure by inches or centimeters it measures by blocks. An avatar is so many blocks tall, doesn't matter if that avatar is painted to look like a human or painted to look like a 50 foot tall robot. It is still (roughly) the same number of "blocks" tall. You could reskin Call of Duty, and make it look like Mechwarrior - you wouldn't need to increase the avatar size by 1000, you just reskin it.

[Cest7]

senaiboy, on 14 June 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Battlefield-esque kind of detail in it.

MWO already has better collisions than BF3... Vehicle collisions resulted in massive rubberbanding in that game. I really want proper collisions with knock-downs moved up the priority list. The game does not feel like a sim without it.

[tuffy963]

I have limited understanding of how video game physics simulator works. Here are some observable aspects of World of Tanks gameplay that can be used as inspiration (since so much of this game has already been "inspired" by WOT)....

• Big tanks can push little tanks around. The tank's mass and horsepower both seem to be taken into account when two tanks are making contact
  
• When two tanks collide, tank mass and armor thickness at the point of impact are taken into account to determine damage to both tanks
  
• Friendly tank collisions use similar collision rules, but only deal each other 1/5 damage that they do enemies
  
• Bigger tanks climb hills slower than little tanks
  
• Fast tanks can skid on hard ground
  
• Heavy tanks are more affected by soft ground than lighter tanks
  
• Tanks can land on each other and deal damage
  
• Angle of impact directly affects the amount of damage received to each unit
  
• Acceleration has many factors: Tank mass, engine horsepower, suspension, ground hardness, damage to components and crew

These are all interesting characteristics that would add realism and variety to this game.

[Matthew Craig]

Probably getting time for a larger CC post update from engineering, there is lots of good stuff going on internally that isn't very visible externally currently. For now though a quick note at the end of another busy week.

As was detailed some time back we removed knockdowns as part of a back to basics approach to layer back in the functionality correctly and simplify the movement code situation to allow us to more easily nail out HSR etc.

Much of the basic movement code is currently being refined even further to incorporate accurate Mech movement speeds up/down slopes etc. and as is well noted the HSR/bandwidth optimizations are currently being stabilized. Once stabilized that should represent the majority of the movement/weapon firing code stabilized.

Stabilizing the Mech movement code, along with bandwidth optimizations and stabilizing the HSR for all weapon types is not entirely trivial but we expect to get it nailed out in the coming weeks and this helps lay the groundwork for 12 vs. 12 along with another round of client side optimizations.

As mentioned earlier in development once we stabilize the Mech movement code and the weapon firing then we feel we'll be in a good state to start looking at bringing back collisions/DFA, that doesn't mean it will necessarily happen straight after as there is also background work going on for UI 2.0 and CW that both need support work.

One of the reasons things may appear a bit slow right now is we are also working hard on our internal tools/telemetry to help monitor things like network bandwidth, frame-rate, memory etc. so that with each new patch we increasingly have the tools to ensure that there are no regressions to the core systems while we continue to add new features.

As is noted in many a thread nothing is more frustrating than watching features that work well break, and we fully understand that we want to put an end to that during the Beta phase such that when we emerge into Launch the odds of those types of regressions are minimal.

So to answer the original question it's coming we just want to ensure it's done properly in a sustainable manner the same approach we're taking for all new features.

[matux]

Thanks Matthew, When will we be seeing this public test server i hear so much about. Sick of hearing about how great UI 2.0 will be when many features of the game are not working or have been removed.

[Vyviel]

Also can I coat my mech in whatever material those fences are made of? They seem to absorb all my PPC shots with 0 damage even if the shot is 1 meter above the fence =P

[Scarcer]

tuffy963, on 14 June 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

I am an avid Battletech table top fan. All of my comments below should be taken in one overarching context: I am thoroughly enjoying MWO and think you guys have something great here.

This observation has one general point... The engine does a poor job of handling mass, inertia, and volume in any coherent fashion. During game play this undermines the games sense that you are in a multi-ton vehicle. Here are a few examples of where the current beta game does not impress when it comes to physics...

It sounds like you haven't been playing this game very long; at-least no later than Q1 2013; it also sounds apparent that you don't spend much time browsing the forums, so you're extremely uneducated on what is going on when you attempted to open this discussion.

I applaud the dev's post above me.

Mech collisions and knockdowns existed in closed beta and early open beta; and have been removed; followed by lots of netcode improvements which is great.

Personally I'd prefer semi-broken collisions over nothing; but I can understand and sympathize with why they would want to take a basic layered approach. Hopefully the test servers will help with the impatient individuals and make this cycle of the game truly function as a beta so the public isn't spoon fed features.

Edited by Scarcer, 14 June 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[matux]

This may also have something to do with it.

Edited by matux, 14 June 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[Aslena]

I don't really care much about any of this stuff... but I do wish they'd get DX11 working so the game would run better

[tuffy963]

Scarcer, on 14 June 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

It sounds like you haven't been playing this game very long; at-least no later than Q1 2013; it also sounds apparent that you don't spend much time browsing the forums, so you're extremely uneducated on what is going on when you attempted to open this discussion.

True and True... but then again, I don't have to be a veteran beta player OR a forum archivist to make a post about the obvious flaws in the game. The fact that it was attempted before and failed is also irrelevant to my original point. My only point is this... These topics will have to be taken up again if the game is going to be successful in the long term. New player bring fresh perspective and a fresh sense of urgency to topics that you "old timers" have given up on, or at least given up talking about.

I also appreciate the direct feedback from the PGI team. Your willingness to share internal process on these matters builds confidence for me. Thanks!

[Scarcer]

tuffy963, on 14 June 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

True and True... but then again, I don't have to be a veteran beta player OR a forum archivist to make a post about the obvious flaws in the game. The fact that it was attempted before and failed is also irrelevant to my original point. My only point is this... These topics will have to be taken up again if the game is going to be successful in the long term. New player bring fresh perspective and a fresh sense of urgency to topics that you "old timers" have given up on, or at least given up talking about.

I also appreciate the direct feedback from the PGI team. Your willingness to share internal process on these matters builds confidence for me. Thanks!

The trick is to frequent the forums; the dev's have brought these things up before

[Asmosis]

don't forget the current ability to go "skiing" with mechs where you either slide forward, backwards or sideways, either when walking forward backwards or stopping.

You'd think they could put a handbrake in the mechs

I know this did come up quite a while ago and there was some explanations around how/why this isn't an easily fixed issue, but its still an issue having to stay at 10% speed.

[senaiboy]

tuffy963, on 14 June 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

I find it interesting that you are willing to justify the game's lack of competitive features based on extenuating business factors (size of PGI). Ultimately, PGI is an entertainment business, and has to compete with every other entertainment business that is vying for our attention. These guys seem swell, but for me, they don't get any breaks because they are "a relatively small team". There are ways to bring those resources online, if PGI deems it critical to the success of MWO (and PGI).

For my part, I see a company that is very focused on the "low hanging fruit" of getting the game up and operating. That needs to be balanced against bringing something truly unique experiences to the gaming arena. As it stands right now, MWO seems like a copycat of World of Tanks business model and in game experience... Of course, WOT does have a fantastic physics engine in that game. In PGI's defense, It is worth noting that WOT did not get their physics figured out until year 2.

I do agree that it can wait for 4-8 months, but the desired experience should be getting figured out now.

It's not about giving leeways to PGI because they are a smaller team, but we have to be more realistic in our expectations. This game has only been in development for around 2-3 years and in Beta for a year. Looking at the scope of what they ultimately want MWO to become with Community Warfare, the constant need to balance mechs/weapons, the various bugs needing fixed (netcode, HUD issues, etc), some things will have to take a backseat.

As opposed to AAA games like Battlefield or Starcraft which came out looking very polished, it's not fair to expect the same out of MWO with a much smaller team and budget. Sure they can go and hire more programmers, but MWO is only one game and whether the payment model is sustainable for the coming years is yet to be proven.

I agree the physics can be improved a lot, but it's good enough for now - there are other more important and obvious things to fix/add. Most of what you mentioned are already being developed as well.

Addendum: Btw, melee combat has been ruled out by PGI if I remember it right.

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 07:11 AM.

[Aslena]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

Addendum: Btw, melee combat has been ruled out by PGI if I remember it right.

wow that stinks... maybe someday in the future

Edited by Aslena, 16 June 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Unrelenting Farce]

Umm. Reading comprehension failed me, and I basically repeated another post.

Edited by Unrelenting Farce, 17 June 2013 - 08:39 AM.